Student Information System Tender
| Client Industry: | Education |
|---|---|
| Purchase Category: | Information Technology |
Challenge
Selecting a new Student Information Systems is a big decision for any university: An S.I.S. is a complex software system with a wide range of functional, technical and administrative aspects to consider Switching to a new S.I.S. is huge project - implementation, integration and training challenges are all significant *Staff throughout university departments depend on the S.I.S. for their daily work. Thus many people's requirements and priorities need to captured in the tender process * Thanks to the notoriously rigorous Office of the Auditor General, New Zealand's public sector organization must follow a strict set of tendering guidelines for transparency and fairness of decision making r Faced with these factors, AUT's project team were eager to find tools that could help them to magnitude.
Solution
PostRFP is designed to meet precisely these challenges. Multiple evaluators can collaborate on defining requirements and on assessing vendor offerings. Strict procurements guidelines for vendor communication, process transparency, and fine grained auditing can be enforced by clicking one or two options when setting up an RFP project.
Auckland University of Technology registered 34 evaluator users, and defined 430 rfp questions, broken up into 7 sections with additional subsections. The questionnaire was begun by importing an Excel spreadsheet , and was then customised and extended online, using PostRFP’s tender question editing functions. Many questions were closed (multiple choice - allowing for automated scoring), but with comments fields available for clarification. 430 questions were drafted in total.
For the tender evaluation, scores from different evaluators where collated using PostRFP’s multiple score set functionality, with many users choosing to use evaluate tender responses offline before importing the scores back into PostRFP for aggregation and analysis. 4 different weighting sets were configured, each reflecting a different scoring methodology, rather than the typical approach of having different weighting sets to reflect different people’s or departments priorities.