Vendor decisions often stall because the criteria weren't set upfront — you end up debating whether the winner should be the cheapest, the most-integrated, or the most-established without ever agreeing on which matters most. This workflow forces the sequence: agree on criteria first, then score against them.
Set the criteria
Goal: Before looking at any vendor, name the 5-7 criteria that matter and their relative weights.
We're evaluating vendors for [category — e.g., 'contract lifecycle management for a 50-person legal team']. Draft 5-7 selection criteria appropriate for this category, with suggested weights (add to 100%). Don't include any vendor-specific consideration yet — just what would matter for anyone in this space.
Score the shortlist
Goal: Score each vendor 1-5 against each criterion; get a weighted total.
Here are our 3 shortlisted vendors: [paste names + key facts each]. Score each 1-5 on the criteria above. Show your reasoning per score. Compute the weighted total.
Recommendation memo
Goal: One-page recommendation with reasoning + trade-offs made explicit.
Given the scoring, draft a one-page recommendation memo. Include: recommendation, key trade-offs, the strongest counter-argument, and the specific decision needed to move forward.
Repeatability, not cleverness.
What lives where when the workflow finishes.
Save the completed matrix + recommendation. When you revisit this vendor category in 2-3 years, this doc is the baseline — you can see if your criteria weights should shift given what actually mattered.
The same shape, different jobs.
- Solo decision version: same structure, no team consensus step.
- RFP version: same structure but formalized — send criteria to vendors upfront, score their formal responses.
- Reversal check: after choosing, imagine the choice went badly in 12 months — what would have made you wrong? Answers give you the top risks to monitor.
Try this workflow once. Then decide if it earns a recurring slot.
The value compounds after the third run, not the first.