Page 1

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 2
Vendor Scorecard Template
Project Name:
Software Names:
Project Start Date:
Project End Date:

Preliminary evaluation assumptions:

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 3
Software Evaluation Criteria

Description

Weight (%)

Functional and Technical Assessment Factors

Functionality
Robustness of vanilla solution in comparison to best of creed solutions; Degree
of customization needs that can be met; Availability of workarounds that can be
used to meet business needs

30%

Usability

Ease of use, intuitiveness, number of clicks, user interface appeal, portal

15%

Technical Alignment

Architectural openness and extensibility, performance, scalability, reliability,

availability, security and compliance

20%

Vendor Background

Company history, strategic direction, stability, support, risk impact

5%

Total Cost of Ownership

Hardware costs, software license, implementation costs, and on-going support

costs

30%

NOTE: Weighting and criteria TBD based on specific project needs. Confirm these with the Project Sponsors,
Project Manager and Steering Committee members.

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 4

Software 1
Evaluation Criteria
Functionality
Usability
Technical Considerations
Vendor Viability
Total Cost of Ownership

Weighting
30%
15%
20%
5%
30%
Total Score:

Software 2

Average Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted Score

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Lowest cost solution = 100 (both solutions will receive same score if within 3%)
Next solution if 3% to 11% var. = 80
Next solution if 11% to 20% var. = 60
Next solution if 21% to 30% var. = 40
Next solution if 31% to 40% var. = 20
Next solution if 41% to 50% var. = 0

Other scenarios based on various weightings

Scenario 1
Software 1
Evaluation Criteria
Functionality
Usability
Technical Considerations
Vendor Viability
Total Cost of Ownership

Weighting
30%
20%
20%
10%
20%
Total Score:

Software 2

Average Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted Score

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Scenario 2
Software 1
Evaluation Criteria
Functionality
Usability
Technical Considerations
Vendor Viability
Total Cost of Ownership

Weighting
30%
20%
20%
15%
15%
Total Score:

Software 2

Average Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted Score

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Scenario 3
Software 1
Evaluation Criteria
Functionality
Usability
Technical Considerations
Vendor Viability
Total Cost of Ownership

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Weighting
30%
15%
25%
10%
20%
Total Score:

Software 2

Average Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted Score

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504
Err:504
0
Err:504

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 5

Evalution Component: Functionality

4=
=
=
=
=

F3
o2
l1
l0
o
w
u
p

Full functionality is available, needs basic configuration (e.g. branding, reports, vendor integration tools)
Most functionality is available, may require basic customization
Basic functionality is available, but requires some customization, supplemental technology, and/or other workaround
Basic functionality is available, but requires highly complex customizations and / or manual workarounds
Functionality is not available at this time
Insert Software Name 1
Business Process

A
c
t
i
o
n
s

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Description

Person 1
Score

Comments

Person 2
Score

Comments

Person 3
Score

Comments

Insert Software Name 2

Person 4

Score

Comments

Person 5
Score

Comments

TBD
Score

Comments

Person
Score

Comments

Person 2
Score

Comments

Person 3
Score

Comments

Person 4
Score

Comments

Person 5
Score

Comments

TBD
Score

Comments

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 6

Evaluation Component: Usability

4=
3=
2=
1=
0=

Excellent
Good
Neutral
Poor
Functionality is not available at this time

Usability Criteria

Description

Insert Software Name 1

Person 1
Score

Navigation / Ease of Use TBD Functional Area

- The system allows me to easily move

between pages and scroll through bodies
of information
- The number of mouseclicks, keyboard
strokes or other required actions are
reasonable and efficient
- The systems' choice of words/phrases
helps me quickly find what I'm looking for

Navigation / Ease of Use

-TBD Functional Area

- The system allows me to easily move

between pages and scroll through bodies
of information
- The number of mouseclicks, keyboard
strokes or other required actions are
reasonable and efficient
- The systems' choice of words/phrases
helps me quickly find what I'm looking for

Visual Appeal

- I like the system's visual appeal and

overall layout
- The layout is organized and logical
- Pages are not overly cluttered or busy
- The system's font and color scheme
makes the displayed information easy to
read

Intuitiveness

- The system is intuitive and I can quickly

learn it well enough to accomplish basic
tasks
- The sytem is intuitive enough for me to
find the information / data I need to
perform my job
- Tools such as on-line help and search are
available to help me find what I am looking
for

Personalization

- The system is flexible and allows me to

modify features according to my
preferences
- I can design the layout of my home page
allowing me to quickly access the
information that I frequently use

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Comments

Person 2
Score

Comments

Person 3
Score

Comments

Insert Software Name 2

Person 4

Score

Comments

Person 5
Score

Comments

TBD
Score

Comments

Person 1
Score

Comments

Person 2
Score

Comments

Person 3
Score

Comments

Person 4
Score

Comments

Person 5
Score

Comments

TBD
Score

Comments

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 7

Evaluation Component: Technical Alignment

4
3
2
1
0

=
=
=
=
=

No gaps identified
Minor gaps identified
Some gaps identified and may pose a risk to the University
Gaps identified are of major concern to the University
No information available
Technology
Characteristics

Technical
Architecture - Application,
Development, Open,
Scalable, Extensible,
Performance, Reliability
and Availbility, Disaster
Recovery

Insert Software Name 1

Description
Score

Person 1
Comments

Score

Insert Software Name 2

Person 2
Comments

Score

Person 1
Comments

Score

Person 2
Comments

How well is the application

architecture compared to best
industry practices and latest
technology and trends? Does the
vendor use leading practice tools,
processes, standards, and
environments for internal
development? Can the system easily
be enhanced with new capabilities
without having to make major
changes to the system infrastructure?
Can the system handle NYU's current
and future transaction volume and
still run efficiently with minimal
interruptions? Can the system scale
with NYU's plans for rapid global
expansion? Does the system
experience frequent "downtimes"? Is
the vendor's disaster recovery
approach acceptable?

Future Technology
Roadmap Impact

Would the vendor's technology

roadmap have minimal impact on /
disruption to NYU?

Technical Integration

How easily can the system integrate

with NYU's existing systems?

Workflow Ease of Setup,

Configuration,
Customization and
Integration

How easily can NYU customize the

system? What is the level of
complexity to set up workflow? How
easily can workflow integrate
between modules and systems? How
easily can the workflow be
customized? What is the level of
complexity of customization?

Ease of
How easily can NYU customize the
Customization/Configurati system? How easily can the system
on
be configured to meet NYU's
requirements?
Reporting - Application,
Ad-hoc, Operational and
Analytical

How good is the application reporting

capabilities and how well it can be
integrated with NYU DW?

Infrastructure How difficult, easy is to install,

Installation, Maintenance, maintain, apply patches and fixes to
Updates, Patches and
the application?
Fixes
Support - Issue
Resolution, Technical
Support Vendor

Is the technical support provided by

the vendor sufficient for NYU's needs
(e.g. 24/7 support, multiple
languages); What is the response
time can be expected from the
technical staff in the event of
technical support questions or
issues?

Application Response

Application response from various

global sites
Network latency from various global
sites and instantaneous bandwidth
consumption rate for 5,000 clients

Network Latency,
Bandwidth

Security
Security - Application,
Are there any gaps in the vendor's
Data Center, Auditing and security model?
Compliance
Security (TSS) Authentication, Access
Control, Encryption,
Integrity,
Design/Development,
Maintenance,

For all (TSS) ratings, the following

applies:
0 = complete failure to meet reqs/did
not answer - RED FLAG
1 = Significant failure to meet reqs,
did fully answer question
2 = Partial failure to meet
requirements
3 = Minimally met requirements
4 = Exceeded
requirements/expectations

68
0
0
#DIV/0!
90

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

0
0
#DIV/0!

0
0
#DIV/0!
88

0
0
#DIV/0!

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 8

Evaluation Component: Vendor Viability

4
3
2
1
0

=
=
=
=
=

Exceeds industry norms

Meets industry norms
Partially meets industry norms
Does not meet industry norms
No information available

Vendor Background Criteria

Description
Score

Company background

Rankings and awards, Reputation, History

Leadership Vision

What is the vendor's strategic direction and does it

pose any potential risks / impacts to NYU?

Client base

What is the size and demographic of the vendor's

current client base; how many clients have they lost /
gotten recently? How many were upgrades vs. new
installs?

Stability of product line

What is the probability that the product line will sustain

for the long term (at least 20 years)

Person 1
Comments

Score

Person 2
Comments

Score

Insert Software Name 2

Person 3
Comments
Score

Person 4
Comments

Score

Person 5
Comments

Score

Person 1
Comments

Score

Person 2
Comments

Score

Insert Software Name 2

Person 3
Comments
Score

Person 4
Comments

Score

Person 5
Comments

Vendor Financial Stability

Global Support

What is the vendor's ability to capture demographic

data for countries where NYU currently operates?
What additional countries, outside of where NYU
currently operates, are supported by the vendor?
What is the vendor's plan for future global capability
growth?

Implementation Partners

Availability / access to expert resources

Continuous Improvement

Frequency of solution improvements; Effectiveness of

solution improvements

Quality of Vendor Training

How effective is the training provided by the vendor?

Are there extensive Support Materials and Resources
available to customers?

Customer Support

Quality of service, SLAs, Responsiveness of support

team

3rd Party Vendor Viability

Risk factor; What is the level of stability of the

software's 3rd party vendors?

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 9

Evalution Component: Functionality

Business Process

Insert Software Name 1

Person 4
Person 5

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Insert Software Name 2

Person 4
Person 5

TBD

SME

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

TBD

SME

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

0
Err:504
0.0000

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 10

Evaluation Component: Usability

Usability Criteria

Insert Software Name 1

Person 4
Person 5

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area

Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area

Visual Appeal

Intuitiveness

Personalization

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

TBD

SME

Insert Software Name 2

Person 4
Person 5

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

TBD

SME

0
Err:504
Err:504

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 11

Evaluation Component: Technical

Insert Software Name 1
Person 1
Person 2

Technology Characteristics

Insert Software Name 2

Person 1
Person 2

Technical
Architecture - Application, Development, Open, Scalable,
Extensible, Performance, Reliability and Availbility,
Disaster Recovery

Future Technology Roadmap Impact

Technical Integration

Workflow Ease of Setup, Configuration, Customization

and Integration

Ease of Customization/Configuration

Reporting - Application, Ad-hoc, Operational and

Analytical

Infrastructure - Installation, Maintenance, Updates,

Patches and Fixes

Support - Issue Resolution, Technical Support Vendor

Network Latency, Bandwidth

Security

Security - Application, Data Center, Auditing and

Compliance

Security (TSS) - Authentication, Access Control,

Encryption, Integrity, Design/Development, Maintenance,

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
1
2
3
4

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

Managed by
Program Services Office

Page 12

Evaluation Component: Vendor Viability

Insert Software Name 1
Vendor Background Criteria

Insert Software Name 2

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Company background

Leadership Vision

Client base

Stability of product line

Vendor Financial Stability

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Global Support

Implementation Partners

Continuous Improvement

Quality of Vendor Training

Customer Support

3rd Party Vendor Viability

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0.00
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

0
Err:504
Err:504

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

SME

0
Err:504
Err:504

SME

0
Err:504
Err:504

Managed by
Program Services Office