When evaluating technology vendors, it's common for organizations to gravitate toward the platform with the most features, on the assumption that more capability is always better. In practice, this often leads to overbuying systems that are more complex and costly than the organization actually needs.
Start with requirements, not vendor demos
Vendor demonstrations are designed to showcase capability, not to help you determine what you actually need. We insist on a documented requirements process before any vendor conversations begin, so evaluation happens against real needs rather than an impressive feature list.
Total cost of ownership goes beyond the license fee
The sticker price of a platform is often a small fraction of its true cost once implementation, integration, training, and ongoing support are factored in. We build total cost of ownership models specifically to avoid decisions based on license price alone.
Reference checks should include failure stories
Vendor-provided references are, unsurprisingly, positive. We seek out independent references and specifically ask about implementation challenges, not just successes, since every implementation encounters some friction worth understanding in advance.
Plan for adoption before signing the contract
A technology decision made without a clear adoption and training plan already in place tends to underperform, regardless of how well suited the platform is. We treat adoption planning as part of the selection process, not a separate step that happens after signing.