In my opinion, both as a vendor and someone who has done recruiting, her article came across as too generic and lacked specifics. Here are the main issues to which I take exception:

? Unlike the ERE?s ATS Report that used specific vendor-selection criteria, bracketed companies based on number of employees, and used common questions amongst all respondents, how many vendors did she totally compare and what comparison criteria did she use?

? One problem the author noted was the fact that no one would give her a direct answer to ?Can you do X?? From a needs analysis viewpoint, this type of question more than likely needs further refinement as to specific processes of her company and to the specific requirements of her and her staff.

? In another issue, she continues with criticism of the 80/20 rule. Apparently, she blames the vendors for this issue. After all, this is a free-market economy and if you don?t like it, don?t buy it. In real life, it?s called trade-offs, as not everything you ever find is 100% perfect. Companies, whether large or small, have to evaluate cost, available resources, functionality, ROI, immediate impact on productivity, ease of implementation, etc. and then balance accordingly.

? In another area of concern, she questions the value of training and assigns all the blame onto the vendor. The company detailed the system requirements. Most certainly, the company has an obligation to ensure the training parallels the very requirements they detailed. So, if possible, negotiate in the purchase contract certain specifics for training satisfaction, using an escrow fund for holdback.

You can read the original article at:
http://www.erexchange.com/a/d.asp?cid=2C6C3D3A56B24888A30AB9EF6C830644

Post your own Article Review
http://www.erexchange.com/p/g.asp?d=M&cid=2C6C3D3A56B24888A30AB9EF6C830644