Last year businesses realized that digital transformation wasn’t just a tech industry buzzword but something necessary for them to rapidly respond to the growing Covid-19 crisis. For companies that could do business with a remote workforce, getting the tools, systems and processes in place to enable work from home, eCommerce and digital customer connections was chaos, at least for those that were not already properly outfitted. Looking back now, it's easy to spot three distinct phases of the transformation. Phase one was basically reactionary, get anything in place that will keep the business operating, particularly focused on the newly remote workforce and in communicating with customers and prospects. Phase two was focused on eCommerce (for businesses that had that opportunity), cleanup of work processes and tools, and a growing concern over digital experiences for customers. Phase three, which seems to have started late last year, is broader, and focused on optimizing tools, processes and experiences. This phase will likely continue for the next 18-24 months as workforce policies and new ways to be competitive are explored and implemented.

Software is critical to operating a modern business, which also means that the types and sources of that software have multiplied to an almost incomprehensible point. The way software is delivered has moved to SaaS and cloud computing, and the transition from older to newer models adds to the complexity by creating the need for hybrid solutions that are comprised of complex integrations from cloud to on premises. The idea of sourcing all business software from one or even only a few software vendors is an enigma from a different time, at least for large businesses. Suites, or more appropriately “clouds”, still exist of course, but they are hierarchal sets of nested clouds, made up of many modules. For the mid and small business if is common to find the deployment of a broad set of functionality in a cloud suite, but even then there are many other speciality products needed to meet changing functional needs including supporting a remote workforce, and deeper vertical capabilities than horizontal suites can handle without complex customizations. The past year’s rapid move to an accelerated digital transformation has just magnified these issues. I guess you could sum this paragraph up by saying simply that business technology is critical and often complex.

Dealing with this rapidly increasing level of complexity for the business software landscape is a challenge for any size business, although the process does tend to vary by business size segment. Even with some variation of process the data you need to support a good purchase decisions is fairly predictable. The basic flow of a selection process should have common elements, but the actual decision is related to organizational complexity and company governance and compliance guidelines. For the most effective selection process is based on the agile development methodology. The steps should include:

• Define business issue(s)

• Define primary functions impacted by the issues / potential solution

• Define User roles for the impacted areas

• Users define a set of initiatives for each business area

• Users define an initial list of epics and stories.

• Short list candidate solutions based on data collected to support the initial evaluation of solution to user stories

• Evaluate short list against the user stories in depth

• Selection and contract negotiation

These “steps” present a broad enough framework to accommodate a variety of functional areas and issues. Post selection you need to take the initiatives, epics and stories and refine them into the backlog for the implementation, but since thats implementation I’ll save that for a future post. The importance of this agile selection approach over the traditional waterfall based requirements / needs analysis mapped to software features approach is that vendors are prepared to check off boxes in a list of requirements but the actual user stories provide a true “fit” analysis to ensure you choose the solution that will actually solve your business problems. In other words using the older “requirements mapped to functionality” approach is well known and documented, and much easier for vendors to simply check off the list. User stories provide scenario based evaluation that is much more difficult to game. The length of time varies by business size, problem complexity, internal process, culture, governance controls, etc. In a small business the whole process could be handled by the “owner”, or in a mid-size or large business a team of many people, depending on the system being evaluated.

With this agile process in mind, let’s look at data to support the process. From a project perspective the issues could come from any number of events like a system replacement cycle, a change in a process, a need for greater efficiency, a breakdown in strategy or new competitive threats…the list is endless but overall make up the theme for the project. Once you understand your problem or opportunity (all issues aren’t just created by a problem of course, it could be a new business opportunity that requires some system changes to support them), then you can start to use internal and external data sources to identify ways to solve the issue(s).

When you’re looking for external data to support your selection process the list of criteria is fairly simple, it has to be from a trusted source, it has to be relevant to your current situation, and it has to be accessible at the right time. Trusted source is ultimately based on a personal decision but there are factors that can influence that trust. One factor that is pretty common to people in general is the idea of “like me”. In other words we look for advice and tend to trust opinions from people that are to some degree similar to us and thus have similar “user stories”. Offline we have sought out people like us for ages, you join groups that have similar interests, are culturally similar, have similar experiences, etc., so it’s no surprise that our behavior online is modeled after this same concept. Trust is very high when the online source is from that ”like me” category.

To support the data needs of researching solutions to an issue or opportunity, you can look to several sources that would meet the criteria of trusted, relevant and accessible. Here are some of the potential matches to the criteria for decision support data. Here are a few ideas:

• Public social networks: This is a good source of information if a bit variable depending on how connected you are to people that meet the criteria of course. Assuming that you tend to connect with people like you, then you’d assume that at least a part of your network would meet that criteria. Relevancy might be a little harder to find but again, I’d assume that it could be met, and of course accessibility isn’t likely an issue. I’d rate this as a highly useful source with a few caveats.• Media (online and traditional): This is a bit more complicated since you’re searching and could have a little more difficulty getting to information that would meet all 3 criteria, but not impossible. Most of us have a few media sources that we already trust so it’s a matter of searching for content that is relevant to your specific set of questions. Accessibility might be an issue if the media was behind a paywall that you did not or chose not to support. I’d rate this one as medium useful as long as accessibility is dealt with.

• Industry organizations: A relatively good source of data, at least at the exploratory level of the research. This would depend on the level of relevancy and detail of the data, which varies by organization. Accessibility is restricted but if you’re planning on using it as a source I’d assume that you have or plan to solve the access issue. Since the nature of the organization is to be “like you”, at least at the industry level, this should be a medium to highly useful source.

• Industry analysts: For most industries there is a healthy set of analyst firms that provide service to that industry as well as the technology focused firms. Access depends on several factors but usually comes down to a paid relationship. The research will likely be helpful at some level but perhaps the more useful option is inquiry with an expert. The information varies by firm, analyst, research methodology and experience so going into the inquiry with as much background on the firm and analyst is wise. You will probably not find complete alignment on the “like me” part of the data search, but if you have a trust relationship with the analyst the information would most likely be highly useful.

• Consultants: Many of the same caveats and observation apply to consultants as well. Both analysts and consultants should spend some time learning about your business and the issues before offering advice and information. They also must be experienced in the agile selection methodology. With consultants generally the methodology allows more time for this phase of gaining understanding about your specific issues than with analysts although there are analysts that consult on a longer more complex engagement as well. The usefulness and appropriateness varies by company and individual needs and always remember that there are a lot of consultants out there (and analysts too) so quality can vary so best to do a through bit of research yourself before engaging them. The outcomes can be highly useful, tempered with some common sense on your part.

• Vendor sponsored resources: There’s often a lot of valuable content and data available on vendor web sites. The issue may be one of trust (or bias) however. Fairly consistently in surveys the vendor web site and sponsored content scores somewhat less trustworthy than independent resources. Even so, you can get useful information from the vendor and should check it if, and when you have learned enough to know possible solutions (in other words when you know the vendor is relevant to your situation). The variability of the resources will be high and you have to exercise an amount of critical thinking when you’re using them.

• Vendor reference companies: Vendor references can be vey helpful in the decision process if they are enough like you, and are trustworthy. It’s useful to understand the motivation behind taking the call. It can simply be that the solution is working and the person wants to share that, or in some cases there can be more to the arrangement…best to be careful. In my experience the biggest issue is getting the “right” references and the “right” individuals to participate. If it meets the criteria then it can be highly useful, if not, then probably not very useful at all. Also remember that talking to 1 or 2 data sources is pretty limiting in the overall scheme of data collection.

• Peer review communities: Well I’m a little biased here since I worked for the leader, G2 as chief research officer for five years and still service as an advisor, but there is a lot of valuable data to be gleaned from peer reviews. From a references standpoint the crowdsourced nature of the reviews, which are in reality in-depth surveys, the information is much more likely to meet all 3 criteria. The better peer review sites like G2 meet all 3 criteria (trusted, relevant and accessible) and are highly useful.

Using the agile selection methodology with support from trusted data sources assisted by a trusted advisor (analyst / consultant) and focused on the fit to your user stories and you are likely to find the best fit solutions. And remember that fit is more than just a list of features. The “leading” solution may or may not be the best fit for you. With digital solutions the business context (size, industry, maturity, specific problems and issues, unique processes, etc.) need to guide the final selection and implementation. And of course contact us to schedule a short free consultation to explore ways we can assist in the agile selection process.