AI Vendor Selection based on Periodic Cube of AI

This guide provides quick decision trees and checklists to accelerate your vendor selection process using the Periodic Cube of AI framework.

Decision Tree 1: Should We Source This Externally?

START: Identify the AI component you need
    |
    ├─> Check "Build vs Buy" dimension in framework
    |
    ├─> Is it classified as "Build"?
    |   ├─> YES → Strong signal to build internally
    |   |         Consider: Strategic differentiation, IP protection
    |   |         ⚠️  Still evaluate: Do we have the capability?
    |   |
    |   └─> NO → Continue to next check
    |
    ├─> Is it classified as "Buy" or "Integrate"?
    |   ├─> YES → Strong signal to source externally
    |   |         Continue to Decision Tree 2
    |   |
    |   └─> NO (Hybrid) → Requires deeper analysis
    |                     Continue to Decision Tree 2
    |
    └─> Cross-check with "Criticality"
        |
        ├─> Mission-Critical + Build → Build internally for control
        ├─> Mission-Critical + Buy → Vet vendors rigorously
        ├─> Enhancing/Optional → Prefer Buy to focus resources
        └─> High Priority → Depends on TRL and Org capability

Decision Tree 2: How Urgent Is This Decision?

START: Confirmed we need to source externally
    |
    ├─> Check "Criticality" dimension
    |
    ├─> Is it "Mission-Critical"?
    |   ├─> YES → SLOW TRACK (8-12 weeks)
    |   |         • Full RFP process
    |   |         • Comprehensive due diligence
    |   |         • Multiple vendor evaluations
    |   |         • PoC required
    |   |         • Executive approval needed
    |   |
    |   └─> NO → Continue to next check
    |
    ├─> Is it "High Priority"?
    |   ├─> YES → MEDIUM TRACK (4-6 weeks)
    |   |         • Abbreviated RFP or RFI
    |   |         • Focused due diligence
    |   |         • 2-3 vendor comparison
    |   |         • Demo or trial required
    |   |         • Director-level approval
    |   |
    |   └─> NO → Continue to next check
    |
    └─> Is it "Enhancing" or "Optional"?
        └─> YES → FAST TRACK (1-2 weeks)
                  • Direct vendor outreach
                  • Basic security review
                  • Single vendor evaluation
                  • Free trial if available
                  • Manager-level approval

Decision Tree 3: Which Vendors Should We Consider?

START: Ready to create vendor longlist
    |
    ├─> Check "TRL" (Technology Readiness Level) dimension
    |
    ├─> Is it "Established" or "Foundational"?
    |   ├─> YES → Target: Large, established vendors
    |   |         Examples: AWS, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Oracle
    |   |         Expect: High stability, broad features, higher cost
    |   |
    |   └─> NO → Continue to next check
    |
    ├─> Is it "Maturing"?
    |   ├─> YES → Target: Mid-market specialists + Large vendors
    |   |         Examples: Databricks, Snowflake, Scale AI
    |   |         Expect: Innovation + stability, competitive pricing
    |   |
    |   └─> NO → Continue to next check
    |
    └─> Is it "Emerging"?
        └─> YES → Target: Startups + Innovation labs of large vendors
                  Examples: Early-stage companies, research spinouts
                  Expect: Cutting-edge, higher risk, flexible pricing
                  ⚠️  Requires extra financial due diligence

Scoring Quick Reference

How to Weight Evaluation Criteria

Use this table to set weights based on the component’s framework classification:

Framework Dimension	If Classification Is…	Then Weight Should Be…
Criticality	Mission-Critical	Security & Compliance: 25-30%
	High Priority	Security & Compliance: 15-20%
	Enhancing/Optional	Security & Compliance: 10-15%
Cost Structure	CapEx	Upfront Cost: 20-25%
	OpEx or Usage-Based	Ongoing Cost & Predictability: 20-25%
Technology Readiness	Emerging	Vendor Stability: 20-25%
	Maturing	Vendor Stability: 15-20%
	Established	Vendor Stability: 10-15%
Human Intensity	Human-Driven	Ease of Use: 20-25%
	Human-Collaborative	Ease of Use: 15-20%
	Fully Automated	Ease of Use: 10-15%
Build vs Buy	Integrate or Hybrid	Integration & Compatibility: 20-25%
	Buy	Integration & Compatibility: 10-15%

Total weights must equal 100%

Red Flags by Framework Dimension

Watch for these warning signs during evaluation:

Build vs Buy Dimension

🚩 Vendor claims «no integration needed» but framework says «Integrate»
🚩 Vendor requires extensive customization when framework says «Buy»

TRL Dimension

🚩 Vendor has <10 production customers but component is «Established»
🚩 Vendor has no enterprise customers but you need «Mission-Critical»
🚩 Major version releases every <6 months (instability)

Org. Ownership Dimension

🚩 Vendor’s target user doesn’t match framework’s ownership team
🚩 Training is only available for roles we don’t have

Cost Structure Dimension

🚩 Pricing model doesn’t match framework classification
🚩 Cannot provide 3-year TCO estimate
🚩 Hidden costs exceed 30% of base price

Human Intensity Dimension

🚩 Requires >10 hours/week maintenance for «Fully Automated» component
🚩 No automation for «Human-Supervised» component

Criticality Dimension

🚩 SLA <99.9% for «Mission-Critical» component
🚩 No disaster recovery plan for «Mission-Critical» component
🚩 RTO >4 hours for «Mission-Critical» component

SFIA Category Dimension

🚩 Required skills not available in our organization
🚩 No training program for critical skills
🚩 Vendor doesn’t understand the SFIA activities for this category

Time Estimates by Component Criticality

Use these estimates for project planning:

Criticality	Vendor Research	RFP Process	Evaluation	Due Diligence	Total Timeline
Mission-Critical	2 weeks	3 weeks	3 weeks	4 weeks	12 weeks
High Priority	1 week	2 weeks	2 weeks	2 weeks	7 weeks
Enhancing	3 days	1 week	1 week	1 week	3.5 weeks
Optional	2 days	N/A (direct)	3 days	3 days	1.5 weeks

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Pitfall 1: Ignoring the Framework Classification

❌ Mistake: Treating all components the same regardless of their framework classification.

✅ Solution: Always start with the framework. Let it guide your process rigor and priorities.

Pitfall 2: Over-Engineering for Low-Criticality Components

❌ Mistake: Running a 12-week RFP process for an «Enhancing» component.

✅ Solution: Use the Decision Tree 2 to right-size your process.

Pitfall 3: Underestimating Integration Effort

❌ Mistake: Assuming «Buy» means zero internal development.

✅ Solution: Always check if it’s «Hybrid» or «Integrate» and plan accordingly.

Pitfall 4: Wrong Team Leading the Evaluation

❌ Mistake: Security team leading evaluation of a «Data» SFIA category component.

✅ Solution: Use «Org. Ownership» dimension to assign the right lead.

Pitfall 5: Focusing Only on Features

❌ Mistake: Choosing vendor with most features without considering TCO or operational burden.

✅ Solution: Use all 7 dimensions for a balanced evaluation.

Quick Links to Other Documents

Periodic Cube of AI homepage
Full Process Guide: Vendor_Selection_Guide.md
Detailed Scorecard: Vendor_Evaluation_Scorecard.md
RFP Questions: RFP_Question_Bank.md
Due Diligence Checklist: Due_Diligence_Checklist.md
Framework Data: ai_classification_matrix
Framework Documentation: Periodic Cube of AI Documentation

Document Version: 1.0

Last Updated: November 2025

AI Vendor Selection Using the Periodic Cube of AI Framework

Decision Tree 1: Should We Source This Externally?

Decision Tree 2: How Urgent Is This Decision?

Decision Tree 3: Which Vendors Should We Consider?

Checklist: Pre-RFP Preparation (30 minutes)

Step 1: Framework Analysis

Step 2: Stakeholder Identification

Step 3: Requirements Definition

Step 4: Vendor Research

Checklist: RFP Question Selection (20 minutes)

High Priority Questions (Always Include)

Conditional Questions (Based on Framework)