Page 1

[Insert Project Name]

Vendor Scorecard

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard 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] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 3

Software Evaluation Description Weight

Criteria (%)
Functional and Technical Assessment Factors
Functionality Robustness of vanilla solution in comparison to best of creed 30%
solutions; Degree of customization needs that can be met;
Availability of workarounds that can be used to meet business
needs
Usability Ease of use, intuitiveness, number of clicks, user interface 15%
appeal, portal
Technical Alignment Architectural openness and extensibility, performance, 20%
scalability, reliability, availability, security and compliance

Vendor Background Company history, strategic direction, stability, support, risk 5%

impact
Total Cost of Ownership Hardware costs, software license, implementation costs, and 30%
on-going support costs

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] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 4

Software 1 Software 2 Lowest cost solution = 100 (both solutions will receive same score if within 3%)
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Average Weighted Average Weighted
Next solution if 3% to 11% var. = 80
Score Score Score Score
Functionality 30% Err:504 Err:504 0 0 Next solution if 11% to 20% var. = 60
Usability 15% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Next solution if 21% to 30% var. = 40
Technical Considerations 20% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Next solution if 31% to 40% var. = 20
Vendor Viability 5% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Next solution if 41% to 50% var. = 0
Total Cost of Ownership 30% 0 0 0 0
Total Score: Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

Other scenarios based on various weightings

Scenario 1
Software 1 Software 2
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Average Weighted Average Weighted
Score Score Score Score
Functionality 30% Err:504 Err:504 0 0
Usability 20% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Technical Considerations 20% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Vendor Viability 10% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Total Cost of Ownership 20% 0 0 0 0
Total Score: Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

Scenario 2
Software 1 Software 2
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Average Weighted Average Weighted
Score Score Score Score
Functionality 30% Err:504 Err:504 0 0
Usability 20% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Technical Considerations 20% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Vendor Viability 15% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Total Cost of Ownership 15% 0 0 0 0
Total Score: Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

Scenario 3
Software 1 Software 2
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Average Weighted Average Weighted
Score Score Score Score
Functionality 30% Err:504 Err:504 0 0
Usability 15% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Technical Considerations 25% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Vendor Viability 10% Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Total Cost of Ownership 20% 0 0 0 0
Total Score: Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 5

Evalution Component: Functionality

4 = Full functionality is available, needs basic configuration (e.g. branding, reports, vendor integration tools)
3 = Most functionality is available, may require basic customization
F
2 = Basic functionality is available, but requires some customization, supplemental technology, and/or other workaround
o
1 = Basic functionality is available, but requires highly complex customizations and / or manual workarounds
l0 = Functionality is not available at this time
l
o
w
- Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2
u
p Business Process Description Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD Person Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD
Scor Scor
A Score Comments Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Comments Score Comments Score Comments
e e
c
t
i
o
n
s

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 6

Evaluation Component: Usability

4 = Excellent
3 = Good
2 = Neutral
1 = Poor
0 = Functionality is not available at this time

Usability Criteria Description Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2

Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD

Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments
Navigation / Ease of - The system allows me to easily
Use - TBD Functional move between pages and scroll
Area 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 - The system allows me to easily

Use -TBD Functional move between pages and scroll
Area 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] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 7

Evaluation Component: Technical Alignment

4 = No gaps identified
3 = Minor gaps identified
2 = Some gaps identified and may pose a risk to the University
1 = Gaps identified are of major concern to the University
0 = No information available

Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2

Technology
Description Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Person 2
Characteristics
Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments
Technical
Architecture - How well is the application
Application, architecture compared to
Development, Open, best industry practices and
Scalable, latest technology and trends?
Extensible, Does the vendor use leading
Performance, practice tools, processes,
Reliability and standards, and environments
Availbility, Disaster for internal development?
Recovery 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 Would the vendor's

Roadmap Impact 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 How easily can NYU
Setup, customize the system? What
Configuration, is the level of complexity to
Customization and set up workflow? How easily
Integration 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

Customization/Confi customize the system? How
guration easily can the system be
configured to meet NYU's
requirements?

Reporting - How good is the application

Application, Ad-hoc, reporting capabilities and
Operational and how well it can be integrated
Analytical with NYU DW?
Infrastructure - How difficult, easy is to
Installation, install, maintain, apply
Maintenance, patches and fixes to the
Updates, Patches application?
and Fixes

Support - Issue Is the technical support

Resolution, provided by the vendor
Technical Support sufficient for NYU's needs
Vendor (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 Application response from

Response various global sites
Network Latency, Network latency from various
Bandwidth global sites and
instantaneous bandwidth
consumption rate for 5,000
clients
Security
Security - Are there any gaps in the
Application, Data vendor's security model?
Center, Auditing and
Compliance
Security (TSS) - For all (TSS) ratings, the
Authentication, following applies:
Access Control, 0 = complete failure to meet
Encryption, Integrity, reqs/did not answer - RED
Design/Developmen FLAG
t, Maintenance, 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 0 0
0 0 0 0
### ### ### ###
90 88

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 8

Evaluation Component: Vendor Viability

4 = Exceeds industry norms
3 = Meets industry norms
2 = Partially meets industry norms
1 = Does not meet industry norms
0 = No information available

Insert Software Name 2 Insert Software Name 2

Vendor Background
Description Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5
Criteria
Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments
Company background Rankings and awards, Reputation, History

Leadership Vision What is the vendor's strategic direction

Client base
Stability of product line
Vendor Financial Stability
and does it pose any potential risks /
impacts to NYU?
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?
What is the probability that the product line
will sustain for the long term (at least 20
years)

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] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 9

Evalution Component: Functionality

Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2
Business Process
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD SME Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD SME

TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 10

Evaluation Component: Usability

Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2
Usability Criteria
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD SME Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 TBD SME
Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Area
Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Area

Visual Appeal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intuitiveness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Personalization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 11

Evaluation Component: Technical

Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2
Technology Characteristics
Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Person 2
Technical

Architecture - Application, Development,

Open, Scalable, Extensible, Performance, 0 0 0 0
Reliability and Availbility, Disaster Recovery

Future Technology Roadmap Impact 0 0 0 0

Technical Integration 0 0 0 0

Workflow Ease of Setup, Configuration,

0 0 0 0
Customization and Integration

Ease of Customization/Configuration 0 0 0 0

Reporting - Application, Ad-hoc, Operational

0 0 0 0
and Analytical
Infrastructure - Installation, Maintenance,
0 0 0 0
Updates, Patches and Fixes
Support - Issue Resolution, Technical
0 0 0 0
Support Vendor

Network Latency, Bandwidth 0 0 0 0

Security 0 0 0 0
Security - Application, Data Center, Auditing
0 0 0 0
and Compliance
Security (TSS) - Authentication, Access
Control, Encryption, Integrity, 0 0 0 0
Design/Development, Maintenance,
0 0 0 0
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

0
1
2
3
4

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office
 Page 12

Evaluation Component: Vendor Viability

Insert Software Name 1 Insert Software Name 2
Vendor Background Criteria Person Person
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 SME Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 SME
5 5

Company background 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leadership Vision 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Client base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stability of product line 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vendor Financial Stability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Global Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Implementation Partners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continuous Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Quality of Vendor Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Customer Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3rd Party Vendor Viability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504
Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504 Err:504

[Insert Project Name] Managed by

Vendor Scorecard Program Services Office