Ops Vendor Review

Vendor Review

When to use

Use this to evaluate a prospective or incumbent vendor before purchase, renewal, or replacement, when comparing shortlisted options, or when a spend needs a defensible recommendation for approval.

Not for: deep security due diligence alone (use ops-risk-assessment for that dimension), or negotiating price once the vendor is already chosen. This produces the decision, not the contract.

Method

1. Frame the decision. State the need the vendor fills, the alternatives (including build and do-nothing), and the decision deadline.
2. Score capability fit. Rate how well the offering meets must-have and nice-to-have requirements; note gaps. Decision: any unmet must-have is disqualifying regardless of price — flag it before scoring further.
3. Compute TCO. Sum all costs over the horizon: license/subscription, implementation, integration, training, support, and exit/migration. Do not stop at sticker price.
4. Assess risk. Evaluate financial stability, security/compliance posture, lock-in and data portability, SLA strength, and support responsiveness.
5. Weigh trade-offs. Build a weighted scorecard across cost, fit, risk, and support; compute a total per option.
6. Recommend. Give a clear choose / negotiate / reject verdict with reasoning and the conditions or contract terms to secure.
7. Plan the exit. Note how to leave if it fails — data export and switching cost.

Example

Comparing Vendor A ($40k/yr sticker) vs. Vendor B ($55k/yr). TCO over 3 years: A = $180k (heavy integration + no bulk export), B = $175k (turnkey, clean export API). A fails the must-have "SSO" gap. Weighted scorecard (fit 40%, TCO 30%, risk 20%, support 10%): B wins 8.1 vs. 6.2. Verdict: choose B; negotiate a 3-year price lock and a data-export SLA. Exit: B's export API keeps switching cost low.

Pitfalls

• Anchoring on sticker price. Implementation, integration, and exit costs often dwarf the license; TCO is the real number.
• Ignoring lock-in. A cheap vendor you can't leave is expensive later — always price the exit.
• Scoring without weights. Equal-weighting a nice-to-have against a must-have produces a wrong winner; weight deliberately.
• No do-nothing baseline. Without the build/status-quo alternative, every vendor looks justified.

Output format

Need:        problem + alternatives (incl. build / do-nothing) + deadline
Capability:  requirement | must/nice | met? | notes
TCO table:   cost line | year 1 | ongoing | total over horizon
Risk:        dimension | rating | notes
Scorecard:   criterion | weight | score per option | totals
Recommendation: verdict (choose/negotiate/reject) | rationale | terms
Exit plan:   data export | switching cost