The Migration Project: Finding the Vendor

The migration project team included the IT Manager, the Managing Director, an External Consultant17, the Research Manager and myself. The main consideration, when sourcing the IT solution, was to find a vendor that was able to suggest the hardware and solve the immediate problem and also a company that would offer advice and that could assist in the strategic evolution of information systems. A good working relationship had to be created so a vendor had to be sourced that could work alongside the team at T.Co. By early December 2000, the requirements of T.Co had been finalised. These were:

- A partner who could assist them in upgrading their IT infrastructure, migrate the existing systems and data, and provide on-going support of their hardware and systems.

- Vendors should have a proven record of accomplishment in delivering these services and be capable of providing support to each local office.

- Assistance with the re-cabling of their Manchester office. - Provision and installation of new PC hardware.

- Installation of a new IT infrastructure based upon Microsoft Windows including: a file and print server, e-mail (local and remote capability), diary management applications, database server, remote network access, secure internet access, virus protection and Wide Area Network links to Reading and Solihull.

- Migration of data from Filemaker Pro applications in the Apple Mac environment to the Windows environment.

The selection of vendor was really a foregone conclusion. The external IT consultant knew a company from a previous role. However, I suggested that the company should look at least at two others for comparability (to make my point I asked the team how many quotes they would get for work they wanted to carry out on their home and this seemed to get the message across). I also suggested these could be used as bargaining tools with the recommended vendor. In the end, two other vendors were invited to tender for the work. The IT Manager told me, that at the vendor presentations, it been agreed by the project team that each response had the potential to offer the final solution but they had strengths and weaknesses18.

- Vendor 1, was a large international company that was independently owned, had many different resources available via many different geographical locations. The organisation offered a wide range of products and services and they claimed that ‘no project was too small or large’ for them to cope with. A mid ranged company,

- Vendor 2, (the recommended provider) had a similar organisational set up as T.Co and was located close to the headquarters. They were also a growing company that offered internal services to remote users. They could support customers remotely but were not large enough to offer the varied levels of support that Vendor 1 could.

- Vendor 3, was sourced from the Internet with no prior recommendations and was described by the IT Manager as the ‘budget option’.

The initial contact with each company, after receipt of the tenders, was made by the IT Manager and the external consultant on the vendors’ premises. The IT Manager said that it offered a very different insight to how the organisations worked. Vendor 1 was late and it was obvious that no preparation had been made for the meeting. This immediately gave the impression that the project was indeed a trivial one for this large corporation. A sales person was initially involved so answers to technical matters were not available immediately. Moreover, the documentation regarding the project had to be chased, communications were often not answered and the account manager’s first contact with T.Co was on the day of selection. The final solution had travelled through three of four different departments before finalisation. Any new

area opened in the project introduced a new department, at a different location and with a different contact. Costs were also high. Vendors 2 and 3 were perceived as offering a more personal approach. Initial meetings included senior management, both companies had a rich knowledge of T.Co and customer service appeared to be a priority for them. A ‘beauty parade’19 was arranged for the three vendors to present their final designs, choice of solutions and meet the Managing Director of T.Co. Although the IT Manager and external consultant were involved in this process, the purchase decision was taken by the Managing Director.

Vendor 1 was reported as presenting in a manner that the team expected. The IT Manager said they offered a generic solution that did not completely address their requirements. There was general agreement that Vendor 3 had presented in a professional manner, answered unpredictable questions from the team and was felt to give an overall good performance. However, the IT Manager and External Consultant had reservations about their abilities in relation to support in cognisance of their site visit where they witnessed disorganised working and storage areas, and what appeared to be inadequate technical support. The IT Manager said “my kids’ bedrooms were in better shape!”

Vendor 2 also presented professionally, and critically, the Managing Director from the company attended. According to the IT Manager, mutual respect between him and the Managing Director of T.Co was immediately evident. Their proposal incorporated Virtual Private Network and ADSL technologies and was heralded by the Managing Director of T.Co as “a design for the future!” The recommended vendor was the one that obtained the contract.