QHSE Software Vendor Shortlist Template — 10-Dimension Rubric
A shortlist is easier to defend when every vendor is judged against the same rubric and the same demonstration scenarios. Use the 10-dimension scoring matrix below to compare a five-vendor shortlist against the same requirements. These weights are an editable editorial example, not empirical product scores or mandatory requirements. Set must-pass conditions separately; an average must not compensate for a failed critical control. Adjust timing to accepted evidence.
Define evidence requests in the RFP template, then record observed results in the demo scorecard.
At a Glance
- Dimensions
- 10
- Vendors in scope
- 5 → 3 → 1
- Scoring
- 1–5 weighted
- Timeline
- Scope-dependent
The 10 evaluation dimensions (weights sum to 100)
Industry fit
Pre-built modules and reference customers for your industry (construction, pharma, F&B, etc.).
Module coverage
Depth across incidents, audits, risk, PTW, documents, training, contractor and ESG vs your top 5 use cases.
Mobile / offline UX
Field-grade iOS/Android apps with offline capture, QR codes and photo evidence.
Configurability
Forms, workflows and dashboards configurable by admins without vendor services.
Integrations
SAP, MES, HRIS, SSO (SAML/OIDC), telematics, IoT and webhooks / REST API quality.
Implementation timeline
Vendor's typical time-to-value and the rollout playbook they provide.
Security & compliance
SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, GDPR, regional data residency and SSO/SCIM support.
Reporting / BI
Native dashboards, scheduled exports and BI connectors (Power BI, Looker, Snowflake).
Customer success
Onboarding model, named CSM, training assets and user community.
Total cost of ownership
All-in 3-year TCO: licences, implementation, training, integrations, premium support.
How to run the evaluation
- Approve requirements, mandatory conditions and a manageable shortlist.
- Run the same representative demo scenarios and retain evidence.
- Review relevant references, security scope and contractual responsibilities.
- Agree a bounded pilot, acceptance gates, complete costs and exit terms before expansion.
Copyable scoring matrix
Paste into Sheets or Excel. Score each vendor 1–5 per dimension, then multiply by weight for a weighted total out of 500.
| Dimension | Weight | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry fit | 15 | __ | __ | __ |
| Module coverage | 15 | __ | __ | __ |
| Mobile / offline UX | 10 | __ | __ | __ |
| Configurability | 10 | __ | __ | __ |
| Integrations | 10 | __ | __ | __ |
| Implementation timeline | 8 | __ | __ | __ |
| Security & compliance | 10 | __ | __ | __ |
| Reporting / BI | 8 | __ | __ | __ |
| Customer success | 7 | __ | __ | __ |
| Total cost of ownership | 7 | __ | __ | __ |
Use the interactive demo scorecard to record individual requirements, evidence notes and must-pass conditions, then export your results.
From requirements to a pilot
The figure shows where each stage leaves a written record. The numbers of vendors at each stage are the template's working convention, not a rule, and the stages can overlap in a small team.
Text version of this diagram
- Step 1. Write requirements and must-pass conditions. Owner: Project lead. Approved before any vendor contact. Then step 2.
- Step 2. Build the longlist. Owner: Project lead. Source of each candidate recorded. Then step 3.
- Step 3. Cut to about five on documented evidence. Owner: Project team. Reason for each exclusion written down. Then step 4.
- Step 4. Run scripted demonstrations. Owner: Project team. Same scenarios, same scorers. Then step 5.
- Step 5. Score and check must-pass conditions. Owner: Scorers. Evidence note beside every score. Then step 6.
- Step 6. Deep-dive on about three. Owner: Project team. References, security review and costs. Then step 7.
- Step 7. Pilot one with acceptance gates. Owner: Sponsor. Gates agreed before the pilot starts. End of the sequence.
Worked example with invented scores
The scores below are invented to demonstrate the sums, and they do not describe any product. Each weighted figure is the 1-5 score multiplied by the dimension weight, and the total is the sum, out of a maximum of 500.
| Dimension | Weight | Vendor 1 score | Weighted | Vendor 2 score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry fit | 15 | 4 | 60 | 3 | 45 |
| Module coverage | 15 | 3 | 45 | 4 | 60 |
| Mobile / offline UX | 10 | 5 | 50 | 3 | 30 |
| Configurability | 10 | 3 | 30 | 4 | 40 |
| Integrations | 10 | 2 | 20 | 4 | 40 |
| Implementation timeline | 8 | 4 | 32 | 3 | 24 |
| Security & compliance | 10 | 4 | 40 | 5 | 50 |
| Reporting / BI | 8 | 3 | 24 | 4 | 32 |
| Customer success | 7 | 3 | 21 | 4 | 28 |
| Total cost of ownership | 7 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 21 |
| Total (out of 500) | 100 | 336 | 370 |
Hypothetical vendor 1 totals 336 out of 500 (67.2%) and hypothetical vendor 2 totals 370 (74.0%), a gap of 34 points.
What the totals do not tell you
- Suppose the required sign-in method is a must-pass condition and vendor 2 cannot meet it. The higher total is then irrelevant, because the condition is checked before the weighted score is read.
- The 34-point gap could be reversed by scorer judgement alone. One point of difference between scorers on a 15-weight dimension moves a total by 15. Disagreements of one point on both 15-weight dimensions and one 10-weight dimension would move it by 40, which is more than the 34-point gap.
- A one-point change on the 7-weight cost dimension moves a total by only 7, so a weighted sum can understate how much a buyer cares about price. If cost matters more to you, raise its weight openly, keeping the total at 100.
- A score of 4 from one scorer and 4 from another does not mean the same thing unless both used the same evidence. Write the evidence beside each score.
Common mistakes when scoring vendors
Setting weights after seeing vendors
Weights chosen once a favourite has emerged can end up describing that favourite. Agree and date them before the first demonstration, and record any later change with its reason.
Scoring from the sales deck
A score should rest on something shown in a scripted scenario, a document you were given or a reference you spoke to. Mark claims you could not test as unverified rather than scoring them.
Letting an average hide a failure
A product that cannot meet a must-pass condition, such as a required sign-in method, is out however well it scores elsewhere. Check those conditions first.
Different demonstrations for different vendors
If one vendor is shown your audit workflow and another is shown a general tour, the scores are not comparable. Send the same scenario script to every vendor.
One scorer for everything
A single person's habits become part of the result. Have two or three people score the dimensions they know, independently, before comparing.
Counting licence cost only
The cost dimension is meant to cover implementation, training, integration work and support over the period you will hold the contract. A low licence figure with large services fees is a different cost.
Limits of a weighted rubric
A weighted sum turns judgements into a single number, and that conversion hides things. Two vendors with different strengths can reach the same total. The weights are an editorial example written for this site and have not been tested against purchase outcomes. The 1-5 scale is coarse, so a score of 3 may cover a wide range of real capability.
Use the rubric to organise evidence, not to replace the reading of it. Keep the written notes, the demonstration scripts and the reference calls with the scores, and read the notes where two totals are close. For help drafting the scenarios, see the demo checklist, and for cost questions the pricing guide.
Related buyer resources
Build an initial shortlist from your priorities
Complete three steps for up to five suggestions with at least one matching priority tag. Industry and team-size labels contribute to the match. Use the rubric above to evaluate those candidates with your own evidence.
Get matched