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 Criteria Description Weight (%)

Functional and Technical Assessment Factors

Functionality Robustness of vanilla solution in comparison to best of creed solutions; Degree 30%
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 appeal, portal 15%

Technical Alignment Architectural openness and extensibility, performance, scalability, reliability, 20%
availability, security and compliance

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 30%
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 Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted Score Next solution if 3% to 11% var. = 80

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 Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted 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 Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted 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 Score Weighted Score Average Score Weighted 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)
F3
= Most functionality is available, may require basic customization
o2
= Basic functionality is available, but requires some customization, supplemental technology, and/or other workaround
l1
= Basic functionality is available, but requires highly complex customizations and / or manual workarounds
l0
= Functionality is not available at this time
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

A Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments
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 Use - - The system allows me to easily move
TBD Functional Area 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 - The system allows me to easily move

-TBD Functional Area 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] 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
Characteristics
Technical
Architecture - Application,
Development, Open,
Scalable, Extensible,
Performance, Reliability
and Availbility, Disaster
Recovery
Description Person 1 Person 2 Person 1 Person 2
Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments Score 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 Would the vendor's technology

Roadmap Impact 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, How easily can NYU customize the

Configuration, system? What is the level of
Customization and complexity to set up workflow? How
Integration 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, How good is the application reporting

Ad-hoc, Operational and capabilities and how well it can be
Analytical 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 Is the technical support provided by

Resolution, Technical
Support Vendor
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, Network latency from various global
Bandwidth sites and instantaneous bandwidth
consumption rate for 5,000 clients

Security
Security - Application, Are there any gaps in the vendor's
Data Center, Auditing and security model?
Compliance

Security (TSS) - For all (TSS) ratings, the following

Authentication, Access
Control, Encryption,
Integrity,
Design/Development,
Maintenance,
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 0 0
0 0 0 0
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/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 Criteria Description Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5
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 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)

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] 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 Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Navigation / Ease of Use - TBD Functional Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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, Reliability and Availbility, 0 0 0 0
Disaster Recovery

Future Technology Roadmap Impact 0 0 0 0

Technical Integration 0 0 0 0

Workflow Ease of Setup, Configuration, Customization

0 0 0 0
and Integration

Ease of Customization/Configuration 0 0 0 0

Reporting - Application, Ad-hoc, Operational and

0 0 0 0
Analytical
Infrastructure - Installation, Maintenance, Updates,
0 0 0 0
Patches and Fixes

Support - Issue Resolution, Technical Support Vendor 0 0 0 0

Network Latency, Bandwidth 0 0 0 0

Security 0 0 0 0
Security - Application, Data Center, Auditing and
0 0 0 0
Compliance

Security (TSS) - Authentication, Access Control,

0 0 0 0
Encryption, Integrity, 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 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 SME Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 SME

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