The image below provides an overview of how to optimize software and vendor decisions using a partnering approach.
Research your problem and solution space.
Research methods include:
Recap research findings and conclusions.
Why research?
Avoid:
Engage with organization peers using vendor software, similar products, and services to assess their satisfaction and vendor performance.
Identify and understand your organization's differentiating needs, capabilities, and practices.
Minimize paper and document use and maximize in-person interactions, dialogue, and understanding.
Think Partnerial
Share Agreements
Conduct Breakout Sessions
Quantify the decision options to the extent possible.
This process begins during Engage in Dialogue.
JITDE™ and the enhanced RFP approach share many of the same evaluation activities. The critical difference is the organization's structure, work, and timeline.
Differentiating and agile actions and processes are the essence of Capability Thinking® organizations. Stitched into the fabric of capability teams include ongoing activities not requiring reinvention for every software evaluation project:
Creating the JITDE™ Brief uses the question design and vendor questionnaire constructs from the RFP approach but in a much more streamlined and focused manner.
RFPs are not legal documents. Some may take exception to that claim. An RFP references an organization's standard legal terms and conditions and stipulates that a vendor's response is legally binding. However, it's not a legal document by itself. It can be attached and referenced as an addendum to a legally binding contract. When organizations attempt this approach, the selected vendor usually resists. If a vendor agrees to that approach, they'll significantly edit and clarify their RFP responses, materially changing the context of why an organization chose them.
Rather than weeks or months preparing an RFP, the JITDE™ approach focuses on validating vital needs and reviewing and negotiating actual contractual documents with the most likely two or three vendors invited to onsite evaluation and dialogue sessions.
The JITDE™ vendor evaluation is conducted over a 3-day intensive assessment using team breakouts to parallelize the process.
Note: the following activities were previously completed by capability teams as part of their ongoing research and peer networking:
Here are critical acceleration features that enable the JITDE™ approach.
Capability Thinking® teams embedded in business operations, methods, and techniques are employed to facilitate accelerated dialogue and actions, such as:
As mentioned, business capability teams constantly engage via a business capability life cycle management (BCLCM™) rhythm. These teams agilely achieve business outcomes by engaging in continuous actions, such as the following:
Those actions are at the core of what capability teams continuously do, avoiding the calendar and knowledge transfer time required to:
Here are six actions to accelerate vendor selection decisions.
Execute the first two actions after confirming vital needs. Execute the remaining four actions during Engage in Dialogue.
Use the results from research, peer networking, and vital needs to create a tailored dialogue approach.
Create a checklist of vital needs and business outcomes each prospective partner needs to meet or exceed.
Ongoing research, networking, and a focus on vital needs confirm the top vendors in a solution domain. Based on that evidentiary material, select up to three vendors to engage in further dialogue.
Recap and distribute your vital needs and expected business outcomes briefs, aka JITDE™ Brief, to the selected vendors.
Provide vendors two to three weeks to:
Each vendor receives the same material and content.
The JITDE™ process is about creating relationships and candidly sharing information with potential partners. Once the process begins, though, allow each partner to differentiate and propose innovative ideas and approaches.
JITDE™ promotes innovation and differentiation by enabling potential partners to:
Provide each potential partner with the flexibility to navigate your problem/opportunity domain and create solution insights that they deem crucial.
This process differentiates vendors in terms of how they approach and solve problems.
Request each prospective partner to provide their standard agreements before arriving on-site. As appropriate, share your organization's legal agreements with each partner candidate.
Conduct a business terms dialogue with each partner candidate near the end of their on-site immersion. Push for terms alignment to the extent possible.
Engage respective contract and legal teams after on-site visits to align and finalize legal terms and conditions.
Conduct a virtual before-action dialogue (BAD) with each potential partner before they come on-site. Share your expected business terms during this session.
Once on-site, immerse each potential partner in your business over three days. Focus on vital needs and outcomes.
An agenda for the 3-day assessment workshop may look something like this:
Day One--General sessions attended by all team members:
Day Two--Breakout sessions. Each session focuses on areas of consensus and gaps and works toward the resolution of gaps:
DayThree--Recap and Next Steps:
Crucial roles for each session include the following:
Follow-up within two or three days to conduct a virtual after-action dialogue (AAD) with each prospective partner.
Here's a checklist of the critical steps to optimize your vendor software decisions:
Quantify your decision using a scoring method and checklist to confirm each prospective partner's ability to meet or exceed your organization's vital needs and expected business outcomes.
Winnow the potential partners from three to two before quantifying your decision and finalizing agreements.