Spend Matters makes every effort to accurately assess and score vendor functionality and capabilities. Any vendor included in Spend Matters SolutionMap has received an invitation to actively participate in the RFI-based review process.
Participating vendors must complete an initial Spend Matters qualification process, consisting of completing a ‘mini RFI’, to qualify for SolutionMap entry. Upon completion, the vendor receives an introductory demo request with an analyst. If the solution meets core requirements, the analyst will publish a written analysis on the Spend Matters website. If a vendor is a good fit for any in-depth technology module(s), they are invited to participate in the full SolutionMap RFI process.
If a vendor chooses not to participate in the Spend Matters SolutionMap technology assessment RFI process but is deemed a relevant market player, analysts may score the vendor based on tech demos provided by a third party (e.g., an implementer) and other sources (i.e. public sources, investors, the press, case studies and social media). Such is indicated clearly in any published materials.
Spend Matters analysts validate the solution functionality of a vendor comparing core (i.e. underlying platform capabilities) and differentiating elements against a standardized scoring scale. Scores and all supporting materials are submitted via Spend Matters proprietary SolutionMap scoring portal, dynamically collecting all entries in the master database.
With SolutionMap, Spend Matters has chosen a deliberate focus on the specific functionality and capabilities of the vendor offerings to ensure an unbiased view of the solution. Analyst assessments are intended to help buyers identify which solutions meet their core solution objectives. ‘Soft’ vendor characteristics such as ‘vision’ and ‘market share’ are not taken into account. However, customer references stemming from validated, real-life customers balance the technical perspective with real-life findings in regard to more subjective factors such as user experience, implementation, integration, usability, support services, net promoter score as well as peer-to-peer recommendations.
Prior to publication, the comparative SolutionMap dataset, insights and research findings undergo a rigorous data quality assurance test, analyst peer and editorial review. Actively participating vendors can argue their scores during the RFI process and view their final (locked) scores in the SolutionMap scoring portal at any time. They also receive access to the refreshed comparative dataset (5+ business days) prior to publication.
Standard fact check for non-engaged vendors
Any vendor analysis published by Spend Matters without direct vendor input also undergoes a standard fact check. The vendor receives the brief, omitting the analyst’s opinion-based commentary since these are not fact-based, with a 48 hours turnaround time to ensure accuracy.
Vendors may be included in Spend Matters research if they are considered a relevant industry player based on the market definition and criteria as determined by Spend Matters analysts — to ensure a complete view of the market and optimal intelligence for members.
Spend Matters invites a vendor to actively participate in the SolutionMap review process as a standard practice if they meet the criteria.
A vendor cannot opt out of being included in SolutionMap research if the analyst determines that they have sufficient knowledge of the solution to be scored against the standardized RFI elements. However, any vendor who has not actively participated will be clearly denoted as such in any published materials.
Any vendor featured by Spend Matters receives an invite for factual review as part of our standard ‘fact check’ process with a 48-hour turnaround period.
If a vendor believes that Spend Matters has incorrectly scored its solution functionality/capability, they may counter by providing factual information (i.e. product release information, not sales materials) and supporting demos as required. Analysts are always willing to consider such, and attend (additional) demo sessions. However, they will only adjust scores for proven functionality/capability.
To escalate concerns, contact your assigned analyst or contact Spend Matters RFI administrators in writing:
– Clearly state your concern(s).
– Provide factual supporting information.
Your Spend Matters contact will follow up to address your concerns directly.
If disagreement remains after the initial escalation, you can request further escalation to a member of the executive team who will decide if the disagreement warrants further action. Escalations at this level focus on process, fairness or methodology concerns. Spend Matters may also decline the request, upon which Spend Matters considers the research final.