Harley Case
- Matrix that displays your scores and weights for the 16 selection criteria
Numeric equivalents: L – 1, ML – 2, M – 3, MH – 4, H – 5
| Provider 1 | Provider 2 | Provider 2 | ||
| Factor | Weight | score | score | score |
| Long Term Relationship Potential | 5 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (MH) 4*5 = 20 |
| Research and Development | 4 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 |
| Training and Approach | 4 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | MH 4*4 = 16 | ML 2*4 = 8 |
| Implementation/ Education/ Change Management Methodology | 5 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (MH) ) 4*5 = 20 | (M) 3*5 = 15 |
| Understanding Harley’s Requirements | 5 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (MH) 4*5 = 20 | (M) 3*5 = 15 |
| Enabling the SMS | 3 | (MH) 4*3 =12 | (H) 5*3 = 15 | (MH) 4*3 =12 |
| Out of the Box Fit | 4 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 |
| Financial Viability | 4 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 |
| Cost | 5 | (H) (H) 5*5 = 25 | (L) 1*5 = 5 | (M) 3*5 = 15 |
| Technical Support Offerings | 5 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (M) 3*5 = 15 |
| Overall Functionality | 5 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (H) 5*5 = 25 | (MH) 4*5 = 20 |
| Number of Partner Providers included in Solution Proposal | 1 | (MH) 4*1 = 4 | (H) 5*1 = 5 | (MH) 4*1 = 4 |
| Architecture Compatibility | 4 | (H) ) 5*4 = 20 | (MH) 4*4 = 16 | (H) ) 5*4 = 20 |
| Platform Compatibility | 4 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | (M) 3*4 = 12 | (H) 5*4 = 20 |
| Web Functionality “to go” | 4 | (M) 3*4 = 12 | (H) 5*4 = 20 | (ML) 2*4 = 8 |
| Manufacturing Experience | 2 | (H) 5*2 = 10 | (MH) 4*2 = 8 | (M) 3*4 = 12 |
| Total Score | 296 | 272 | 232 | |
- Analysis
Basing on the above analysis and the information presented in the case, provider 1 is selected because it has the highest matrix score, implying that it meets most of the criteria for the software selection process when compared to provider 2 and provider 3. The highest matrix score is the closest to the ideal alternative for the software selection process by Harley Davidson. In addition, the weights for the criteria were assigned in such a manner that favors the most critical factors, implying that higher weights favored its strengths and vice versa. In addition, using a single weight across all the providers for each factors spreads the strengths evenly, implying that the highest score matrix is the best alternative in such a case; thus, resulting in the selection of provider 1. This implies that the provider with the highest matrix score automatically wins. The reason for the choice of provider 1 is the analysis of the individual criterion. It is arguably evident that provider 1 has the highest numeric equivalents for the most important criteria associated with the provider’s understanding of Harley-Davidson’s current and future requirements, its ability to provide implementation and ongoing technical support, and a mutually beneficial relationship.
- Assessment of the overall software selection process at Harley-Davidson
The overall software selection process is effective since many factors are taken into consideration during the selection, with their weights assigned according to their importance. This implies that the highest score matrix will be the closest to the ideal selection because weighted rations prioritize the importance of the factors. A significant strength of the software selection process at Harley-Davidson is that it is effective when there are numerous factors to be taken into account during the selection process. The method helps in focusing on what is important and prioritizing the alternatives to arrive at the ideal selection. This is vital during complex selection processes. The second strength of this method is that it is more objective since it uses a single weight for each of the criteria. The ideal of the selection is enhanced by the fact that each criterion is weighted in accordance to its importance during the selection processes. The significant drawback of this method is that it does not take into consideration some important trade-offs that may not be met by the highest score matrix. This implies that there is a probability that the choice of the provider may not meet some of the critical criteria for software selection. A recommendation is to engage in an individual analysis of the criteria after the selection of the provider.
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!
