A sound comparison does not count feature names. It asks how each option runs a critical workflow, with which data, controls, costs and risks. Write requirements before a supplier demonstration shapes them.
Define scope
- Measurable objectives and three priority problems.
- Companies, branches, warehouses, users and roles.
- Workflows included and excluded from phase one.
- Data sources, volume, quality and ownership.
- Reports, integrations and regulatory requirements.
- Timeline, budget and available internal resources.
Comparison table
| Dimension | Question | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow | Were normal and exception scenarios completed? | Recorded demo or result notes |
| Data | How will it move and reconcile? | Template, totals and test plan |
| Control | What permissions, approvals and audit trail exist? | Test with different roles |
| Reporting | Does the report answer management's question? | Sample report with drill-down |
| Implementation | Who does what and when? | Responsibility and deliverable plan |
| Cost | What recurs and what is one-off? | Detailed quote and assumptions |
Evaluation method
- Give each requirement a critical, important or later priority.
- Set weights before demonstrations and do not change them to favour a result.
- Use “evidenced,” “conditional,” “not evidenced” and “unavailable.”
- Record each gap, treatment, cost and owner.
- Review risks and dependency on integration or manual work.
- Request written evidence for important commercial or regulatory conditions.
Final decision
Write why the option was selected, what is deferred and what needs a contractual condition, then attach the demo scenario, data plan and acceptance plan. An explainable decision is stronger than an unsupported score total.
Do not award full credit to a future promise or untested integration. Record it as a gap or dependency with an owner, date and explicit acceptance condition.
