01 — Work Emerging Technology Vendor Evaluation
Stakeholder Vendor Feedback Framework
Qualitative evaluation framework and intake form
Feedback workflow — representative
1. Purpose & method
Designed to capture narrative observations after vendor demonstrations. Quantitative scores were recorded separately so strategic concerns, usability reactions, and unresolved questions would not disappear into an average.
2. The form itself
Distributed before each demo. Every stakeholder completed their own column immediately afterward while the session was still fresh — narrative feedback, not scores, with hard concerns flagged so they wouldn’t get lost in a longer write-up.
Finalist A — representative example entries, not actual findings
| Topic | Product strategy | Digital experience | Compliance | Enterprise risk | Member perspective | Subject-matter expert |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform fit and scalabilityTurnkey today, and customizable as needs grow? How familiar is our regulator with this vendor? | “Strong capability depth; training burden may be higher.” | — | — | — | — | — |
| Member experience and onboardingDoes it open inside our existing member experience, or need a separate login? Consistent across mobile and desktop? | — | “Simple member experience; confirm support model.” | — | — | — | — |
| Data and member protectionWhat happens to member data and assets if the relationship ends? Is support outsourced or in-house? | — | — | “Data handling model requires additional validation.” | — | — | — |
| Technical integrationCan it launch without a deeper core-system integration? What ongoing engagement features are included? | — | — | — | “Integration path appears viable; dependency still needs confirmation.” | — | — |
| Regulatory readinessWhat account-protection standards are in place? How are screening and monitoring handled? | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operational supportWhat’s the wind-down plan if the vendor becomes insolvent? How clearly are responsibilities defined? | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Vendor healthIs the vendor funded, profitable, or backed by a credit-union-focused investor? What do reference clients say? | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Commercial modelHow is pricing structured, and are there hidden costs? How visible is third-party branding to members? | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Strategic differentiationWhat would make a member choose this over options they already have access to? | — | — | — | — | — | — |
3. How feedback entered the decision
What the framework preserved
- Usability observations
- Regulatory concerns
- Operational support questions
- Stakeholder disagreement
- Evidence gaps
- Follow-up priorities
Feedback informed
- Vendor questions
- Technical diligence
- Compliance deep dives
- Scorecard revisions
- Executive decision materials
Problem or decision supported
Numeric scoring provided consistency across vendors, but it could not capture differences in member usability, strategic fit, operational burden, or regulatory comfort. A shared framework wasn’t enough on its own either — without a consistent form, feedback came back in different shapes from different people and couldn’t be compared.
My contribution
Designed the structure of the feedback instrument, aligned its topics with the broader vendor framework, separated qualitative feedback from numeric scoring, and built the form itself — one column per stakeholder role, topics grouped to mirror the scoring framework, with instructions that kept feedback comparable across participants and sessions.
How it was used
Distributed before each vendor demo. Stakeholders completed their own column immediately afterward while the session was still fresh, flagging hard concerns so they wouldn’t get lost in a longer write-up. The results fed vendor follow-up questions, scorecard revisions, and executive review.
Outcome or decision enabled
Consistent, comparable qualitative input from six stakeholder perspectives across three finalists — letting the team compare not only what each platform offered, but how different stakeholders read its usability, risk, and strategic value.
Tools and methods
Structured intake form used alongside the weighted scorecard; qualitative synthesis across stakeholder roles
Intended audience
Cross-functional stakeholders participating in vendor evaluation
Confidentiality Representative reconstruction based on the structure of the original feedback instrument — stakeholder names, real notes, scores, and vendor identities are not reproduced.