Overview
A world-class multi-billion-dollar organization was faced with a dilemma. A current vendor contract wasdue to expire. The organization had achoice to make, they could renew the vendor contract or search elsewhere. This documents the process, criteria, findings and conclusion this highly successful organization made to ultimately choose Performitiv.
Process
Due to the time constraints on the current vendor contract expiration the organization did not follow a typical process but they did follow a structured, formal process. This involved Director-level personnel working on assigned tasks to ensure proper due diligence using management-approved criteria (see below). The process inputs, activities and outputs were done in an impartial, thoughtful and methodical manner.
Criteria
The organization wanted to ensure the process included three critical criteria important to senior management. First, the process needed to review budget and cost considerations as the company has a cost-conscious culture. Second, the process needed to ensure minimal functional and technical requirements were met so the business could run its operation without disruption. Third and of particular importance was to ensure that the long-term strategy for measurement was considered and that the relationship with the partner was going to be a value-added, collaborative one that could build over time.
When describing the criteria, one of the Directors stated, “We were looking for day-to-day decision-making, not day-to-day administration.” Further, this same Director commented, “Our goal is to create a culture of performance improvement where it is about taking action on the data.” As a result, the organization when about its process to look at viable options that met its criteria.
Findings
While there were many vendors to choose amongst, the organization focused on three. First, the current vendor that had been in place for several years. Next, was the learning management system provider. This was already implemented and had a learning measurement module. Finally, Performitiv was reviewed. This was a tool that focused on actionable data and performance improvement coupled with simpler data collection and reporting and that was attractive to the organization based on its current and long-term strategy.
Below are the organizations findings on each provider:
Current Provider:
The current provider had been in place for many years but with the existing agreement coming to an end it was prudent to look at other options that aligned to the organizations goals of using more of the data and aligning with a business partner that was committed to working with them in the years ahead as a consultative, thought leader. In addition, the organization was hoping to save costs while increasing agility and innovation. All of these factors were important to the organization and the current provider did not align well to them.
LMS Provider:
The LMS was in place and used by the organization but the organization required certain stock reports that were not easily available and it might result in increased administration for the organization and they wanted to avoid that where possible. In addition, the LMS has several layers to it and a focus on learning measurement as opposed to other components may be a distraction to the commitment of thought-leading learning measurement the organization sought in a long-term partner.
Performitiv:
Performitiv checked many of the boxes the organization desired. First, Performitiv is committed to learning measurement and building a cost effective, world-class technology. Next, they have expertise on staff that is consultative and can be a strong sounding board when needed. This was emphasized by one Director citing, “The Performitiv team is so consultative they weren’t afraid to say, ‘this isn’t a good idea,’ which was very helpful.”
Performitiv also focuses on simpler reporting and using the data for performance improvement. This emphasis resonated well with the organization given they desired to spend less effort collecting and reporting data and more energy using information to improve programs, people and results. One director stated, “With Performitiv we don’t need to look past the first page with reports to run, the answers are there.”
Finally, Performitiv met the organizations criteria for a long-term relationship. This was best summarized when one Director said, “The relationship side is so impactful to their ability to be agile. We were looking for strategic, long-term thinking and a true partnership, not just features and functions.”
Conclusion
The organization chose Performitiv as it met all criteria. They valued an affordable (50% less than the cost of their prior solution), simple and less administrative technology. They valued a commitment to a product roadmap that considered their ideas and needs. Finally, they valued the access to thought-leading experts they could rely upon for guidance.
For more information contact us.
Thank you,
The Performitiv Team
.jpeg)
