Vendor Evaluation Scorecard Template
Component Being Evaluated: [e.g., Feature Store, Model Hub & Inventory]
Date: [Date]
Evaluation Team: [Names and roles]
Instructions
This scorecard is designed to work with the Periodic Cube of AI framework.
Before completing this scorecard:
- Identify the component from the framework you are evaluating
- Review its classification across all seven dimensions
- Customize the weights in Section 1 based on your organization’s priorities
- Score each vendor on a scale of 1-5 (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent)
- Calculate the weighted total score for each vendor
Section 1: Evaluation Criteria & Weights
Set the importance weight for each criterion (total must equal 100%).
| Criterion | Weight (%) | Framework Dimension Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Capabilities | _____% | TRL, Build vs Buy |
| Cost & Pricing Model | _____% | Cost Structure |
| Ease of Use & Automation | _____% | Human Intensity |
| Security & Compliance | _____% | Criticality, SFIA Category |
| Integration & Compatibility | _____% | Build vs Buy, Org. Ownership |
| Vendor Stability & Support | _____% | TRL |
| Skills & Training Requirements | _____% | SFIA Category, Human Intensity |
| Scalability & Performance | _____% | Criticality, TRL |
| Total | 100% |
Section 2: Vendor Comparison Matrix
Vendor 1: _[Vendor Name]_
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Weighted Score | Evidence / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Capabilities | ||||
| Cost & Pricing Model | ||||
| Ease of Use & Automation | ||||
| Security & Compliance | ||||
| Integration & Compatibility | ||||
| Vendor Stability & Support | ||||
| Skills & Training Requirements | ||||
| Scalability & Performance | ||||
| TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE |
Vendor 2: _[Vendor Name]_
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Weighted Score | Evidence / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Capabilities | ||||
| Cost & Pricing Model | ||||
| Ease of Use & Automation | ||||
| Security & Compliance | ||||
| Integration & Compatibility | ||||
| Vendor Stability & Support | ||||
| Skills & Training Requirements | ||||
| Scalability & Performance | ||||
| TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE |
Vendor 3: _[Vendor Name]_
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Weighted Score | Evidence / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Capabilities | ||||
| Cost & Pricing Model | ||||
| Ease of Use & Automation | ||||
| Security & Compliance | ||||
| Integration & Compatibility | ||||
| Vendor Stability & Support | ||||
| Skills & Training Requirements | ||||
| Scalability & Performance | ||||
| TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE |
Section 3: Framework-Informed Analysis
Use the framework’s classification to guide your detailed analysis.
3.1 Cost Structure Analysis
Framework Classification: [e.g., Usage-Based, OpEx, CapEx, Mixed]
| Vendor | Pricing Model | Year 1 Cost | Year 2 Cost | Year 3 Cost | 3-Year TCO | Alignment with Framework |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | ||||||
| Vendor 2 | ||||||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- Does the vendor’s pricing model align with the framework’s classification?
- If not, why?
- What are the implications?
3.2 Human-in-the-Loop Intensity Assessment
Framework Classification: [e.g., Fully Automated, Human-Supervised, Human-Collaborative, Human-Driven]
| Vendor | Level of Automation | Manual Tasks Required | FTE Hours/Week Estimated | Alignment with Framework |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | ||||
| Vendor 2 | ||||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- Does the vendor’s solution match the expected human intensity?
- Will it reduce or increase operational burden?
3.3 SFIA Skills Requirements
Framework Classification: [e.g., Data, Technology, Strategy and Governance]
| Vendor | Primary Skills Needed | SFIA Skills (from framework) | Training Provided | Skills Gap in Current Team |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | ||||
| Vendor 2 | ||||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- Which vendor best matches our team’s existing skills?
- What training or hiring would be required?
3.4 Organizational Ownership Fit
Framework Classification: [e.g., ML/AI Engineering, Data/Platform Engineering, Security/Compliance]
| Vendor | Recommended Internal Owner | Alignment with Framework | Cross-Team Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | |||
| Vendor 2 | |||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- Which vendor solution fits most naturally with our organizational structure?
3.5 Technology Readiness & Risk
Framework Classification: [e.g., Emerging, Maturing, Established]
| Vendor | Years in Market | Customer Count | Enterprise Clients | Maturity Assessment | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | |||||
| Vendor 2 | |||||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- Does the vendor’s maturity align with the framework’s TRL classification?
- What are the risks?
3.6 Criticality & Risk Mitigation
Framework Classification: [e.g., Mission-Critical, High Priority, Enhancing]
| Vendor | SLA Offered | Backup/DR Capabilities | Support Response Time | Exit Strategy Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | ||||
| Vendor 2 | ||||
| Vendor 3 |
Analysis:
- For this criticality level, which vendor provides the most robust risk mitigation?
Section 4: Final Recommendation
Summary Scores
| Vendor | Total Weighted Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor 1 | ||
| Vendor 2 | ||
| Vendor 3 |
Recommended Vendor
Selection: [Vendor Name]
Rationale: [2-3 paragraphs explaining why this vendor was selected, referencing specific framework dimensions and scores]
Key Risks & Mitigation Strategies
Risk: [Description]
- Mitigation: [Strategy]
Risk: [Description]
- Mitigation: [Strategy]
Risk: [Description]
- Mitigation: [Strategy]
Next Steps
- [e.g., Conduct Proof of Concept with selected vendor]
- [e.g., Negotiate contract terms and SLAs]
- [e.g., Develop integration plan with Platform Engineering team]
- [e.g., Create training plan for end users]
Prepared by: [Name, Title]Reviewed by: [Name, Title]Approved by: [Name, Title]Date: [Date]This vendor evaluation scorecard is part of the Periodic Cube of AI framework.