Picture the final meeting. HR has a favourite because it will be the easiest system for managers to use. IT is asking how it connects to everything else in the stack. Finance wants to understand what it will really cost over five years.
Everyone has a point. And each of them is judging the same vendors by a different standard.
Three functions, three legitimate priorities
The detail varies by organisation, but the pattern is familiar:
- HR tends to prioritise usability for employees and managers, fit with how people processes actually run, and adoption.
- IT tends to prioritise security, integration with existing systems, data, and the support burden.
- Finance tends to prioritise total cost, payroll accuracy, reporting and contract terms.
None of these is wrong, and a system that ignores any of them will cause problems later. The trouble starts when the priorities surface late, after the demos, when each person has already formed a view.
Why decisions stall
- Criteria are agreed after vendors are seen. Each function scores by its own lens, so every vendor can look like the right answer to someone.
- Nothing is weighted. A nice-to-have from one team carries the same weight as another team’s non-negotiable.
- Nobody clearly owns the call. Without a named decision maker, “everyone agrees” becomes the standard, and one late objection can restart the process.
- There is no neutral voice. When trade-offs get hard, each function is arguing for its own priorities.
Five ways to reach one decision
- Agree criteria before you meet vendors. Ask each function for its must-haves up front and keep them in one shared document.
- Score together, on the same scorecard. Everyone scores against the agreed criteria, not against impressions of the demo.
- Multiple contributors, one decision maker. HR, IT and Finance should all shape the requirements, but one named person owns the final call. It keeps feedback useful rather than turning it into a stalemate.
- Sequence the input. Decide who is consulted at which stage: requirements, RFP responses, demos and final scoring. People give better input when they know when it is needed, and are not asked repeatedly or too late.
- Use a neutral voice for the hard trade-offs. Someone with no stake in which vendor wins can frame the trade-offs against the criteria everyone agreed.
Where independent support helps
The fifth point is often the hardest to provide from inside the business. This is where Udder’s Vendor Selection service helps. We work with HR, IT, Finance and any other stakeholders to structure the requirements, run the RFP, facilitate vendor presentations and comparisons, and guide the decision using objective scoring by you. We are independent, so we have no preferred outcome.
The decision stays yours, and your people contribute at every stage. We lead the process so the trade-offs are worked through against criteria everyone has already agreed.
Where to start
Even before you involve anyone else, you can set the foundations.
Our free Requirements Starter Template (an editable Excel workbook) asks who is accountable for the final decision and who else needs to contribute. It then scores every requirement Must have, Should have, Could have or Won’t have. Share it with HR, IT and Finance early, so the conversation starts from one document rather than three opinions.
Choose With Confidence.
