Davide zari asset management support tools selection example

Project XX Asset Management Support tools selection Excerpt

2011

Produced by: Davide Zari & Coworkers

Slide 2

Objectives

Objective of this document is to show the executed activities and the main results obtained during

the final phase of the Asset Management software vendor evaluation. In particular:

– Briefly describe the selection process followed to identify the short list

– Describe the technical evaluation of the vendors

– Provide a cost analysis of the solution


Slide 3

Initial Sample

(12)

Long List

(8)

Short List

(4)

Final

Rank

The evaluation of the RFIs allowed to identify 5 vendors The results obtained by the RFI have been match with the results of the first demo session The matching allowed to enter 3 vendors in the short list (A, B and C) Afterwards, as requested by XX, D has been added to the short list

The 12 vendors received the RFI but only 8 of them answered

The RFI aimed to evaluate functional and non functional

requirements of the software offered by each vendor

Vendor selection process

The RFI was sent to a first sample of 12 vendors; through the selection process 4 vendors have

been finally identified: A, B, C and D

The first selection allowed to identify 12 vendors in the Asset Management

software sector

The 12 vendors have been chosen between the main market leaders or between

the vendors already supplier of XX

The final choice is based on the technical evaluation (functional requirements, non-functional requirements,

other requirements, users’ score) and on the economical evaluation


Slide 4

Short list identification

1. A first demo session on the 5 vendors allowed

to create the short list made up of A, B and C;

afterwards D has been added

2. The short list has been assessed by:

– An evaluation based on the level of

coherency with XX standards and on a

potential evolution of the offer to pursue

X business development

– A second demo standardized with X

data and processes

– An economical evaluation

FIRST DEMO

SHORT LIST

SECOND

DEMO

ECONOMICAL

EVALUATION

FINAL

RANKING

The short list is obtained from the combination between the final users evaluation, cost evaluation

and the analysis of the future capabilities of the vendors

1

2 VENDOR

CAPABILITIES


Slide 5

Scheme and weights • The evaluation scheme is made up of four sections:

Functional requirements

Non functional requirements

Other requirements

Users’ score

Each section has a weight, based on the relevance of the section on

the overall opinion

• Each section, except Users’ score one, is made up of a subset of

analysis field

• Each analysis field has a weight

Evaluation rules • Scores goes from 0 (min) to 3 (max)

• Scores are assigned basing on the evaluation drivers listed below:

• Functional requirements: coverage rate of the XX

requirements

• Non functional requirements: coherence rate between

softwares and XX needs and requirements

• Other requirements: softwares robustness and maturity

• Users’ score: opinion of the users based on the second

demo session

- Guidelines -

Rules for technical evaluation

Technical evaluation aims to identify the coherence between the softwares and XX needs and

requirements

- Evaluation scheme -

Section Weight

TOTAL 100%

A. Functional requirements 30,0%

B. Non functional requirements 30,0%

C. Other requirements 20,0%

D. Users’ score 20,0%

Selection/ analysis field Weight

A. Functional requirements 30,0%

1. Benchmarking 21%

2. Portfolio analysis 21%

3. Order Management 38%

4. Scenario analysis 20%

Sections of the evaluation scheme

Areas of the Functional requirements section (example)


Slide 6

Results of techinical evaluation

A and B have scores above the average

Median

2,45

The four vendors have similar scores

in the Functional requirements

section; that means all softwares have

a high functional coverage rate

In the Non Functional Requirements

section, D have a null score because

its product qualification, company

qualification and support model are

not suitable for XX requirements

In the Non Functional Requirements

section, B company qualifications’

score is lower than competitors’

one

A e B demo have the highest score

given by the users

0,90 0,90 0,86 0,90 0,90

0,90 0,75 0,53

0,68

0,60

0,53

0,50

0,60 0,60

0,60 0,20

0,40

3,00

2,78

2,52

2,28

1,80

MAX A B C D

Functional

requirements

Non Functional

requirements Other requiremets Users’ score

0,53 0,50


Slide 7

Recurring costs from FY2

Cost Analysis – Hosting Solution Focus on Fiscal Year 1 (example values)

Non-recurring costs Recurring costs from FY1 Data in .000€

C D

B A

0

100 0 0

30

200

100

20

License Integr. Training HW Consul. Fee /

Maintenance

Index IT

Maintenance

TOT

130

320

450

FY1: 300

TOT. FY1:

430

200

500 10 10 30 50

100 20

170

750

920

FY1: 150

TOT. FY1:

900 TOT. FY1:

750

20

0

400 10 10 30

200

100

450

770

FY1: 300

320

0

400

10 10 30

60 100

20 630

TOT. FY1:

610

450

180

FY1: 160


Maintenance

Index IT

Maintenance

TOT


Maintenance

Index IT

Maintenance

TOT License Integr. Training HW Consul. Fee /

Maintenance

Index IT

Maintenance

TOT


Slide 8

Licenze

0

0 0 30

Integr. Training HW Consul.

Cost Analysis – Hosting Solution Focus on Fiscal Year 2 and Integration costs (example values)

Bloomberg

A

188

100 18

Canone / … Index IT Man.ne TOT

22

9

306

535

B

5 10 30

Licenze Integr. Training HW Consul. Canone / Manut.ne

Index IT Man.ne TOT

44

4

199

Integration costs Recurring costs on FY2

200

100 20

Annual Index IT

Man.ne

TOT

320

63

100 18 625

181

0

399 181

50

100 20 170

Annual Index IT

Man.ne

TOT

Integration costs Recurring costs on FY2

100

30

30

250 410

SI Oth PM External Integration

100 0

30

50 180

SI Oth PM External Integration

Data in .000€


Slide 9

500 300 300 300 300

C D

B A

FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5

900

150 150 150 150

FY1 FY3 FY4 FY5

600

200 200 200 200

FY1 FY3 FY4 FY5

800

300 300 300 300

FY1

FY2

FY3 FY4 FY5 FY2

A B

1000

250

FY1 FY3 FY4 FY5

800

350 350 350 350

FY1 FY3 FY4 FY5 FY2

250 250 250

Cost allocation for the five year period (example values)

Hosting Solution

SaaS Solution

TOT. ≈1.700

TOT. ≈1.500

TOT. ≈1.400

TOT. ≈2.000

FY2

FY2

TOT. ≈2.000 TOT. ≈2.200

Data in .000€


Slide 10

Top performers comparison

A comparison between the top performers allows to identify the differentiating features, used during

the evaluation, that could influence the final choice

STRENGHTS

WEAKNESSES

Market leader specialised on the

segment

High level of R&D

Competitive pricing, with availability of

infrastructures already part of XX

Few installations in national market

Small company size

Strong presence on the national

market

Big company size

Revenues above the average

The specific segment is not part of

their core business

Very high license fees (three times B)

A B

Davide zari asset management support tools selection example

Business

Transcript of Davide zari asset management support tools selection example