An uncomfortable truth that most consultancies will never tell you: by the time your platform selection RFP reaches vendor shortlists, the winner has usually already been decided. Not officially. Not consciously. But decided nonetheless.
After two decades of observing enterprise technology decisions, we have seen the same pattern unfold countless times. Organisations invest months crafting elaborate scoring matrices, conducting vendor demonstrations, and facilitating stakeholder workshops. Then they select the platform that someone influential wanted from the start.
This is not cynicism. It is observation. And understanding this dynamic is the first step toward making genuinely better decisions.
The Theatre of Objectivity
The modern RFP process was designed to bring rigour and fairness to procurement. In practice, it often delivers neither. What it does deliver is a paper trail that justifies a predetermined conclusion.
Consider how scoring typically works. Evaluation criteria are weighted by stakeholders who already have preferences. Vendor demonstrations are interpreted through the lens of existing biases. Technical requirements are written in ways that favour familiar solutions. The entire process creates an illusion of objectivity while human nature runs the show.
None of this is necessarily malicious. People genuinely believe they are being fair. The CMO who attended that inspiring conference session is convinced Platform X is transformational. The CTO whose former colleague now works at Vendor Y sincerely believes their solution is technically superior. These convictions feel like informed opinions, not biases.
Why "Best Fit" Is Often a Mirage
The concept of "best fit" implies that one platform is objectively better suited to your organisation than alternatives. This framing is appealing but frequently misleading.
In reality, most enterprise platforms in a given category can deliver broadly similar outcomes. The differences that matter are rarely about features or functionality. They are about:
- •Implementation approach and partner ecosystem quality
- •Alignment with your existing technology architecture
- •Organisational readiness and change capacity
- •Commercial terms and total cost of ownership over five years, not three
These factors are harder to score in a spreadsheet. They require honest internal assessment rather than vendor comparison. And they often reveal that the more important question is not which platform to select, but whether your organisation is genuinely prepared to implement any of them successfully.
The Architecture-First Alternative
There is a better approach, though it requires more courage than most organisations initially possess.
Before engaging vendors, invest in understanding your own architecture. Not just your current technology stack, but your data architecture, integration patterns, operational capabilities, and organisational constraints. Map where you are truly differentiated versus where you are solving problems that others have solved before.
This architecture-led evaluation shifts the conversation from feature comparison to strategic alignment. Instead of asking vendors to demonstrate capabilities, you ask them to explain how their platform would integrate with your reality. Instead of scoring against a requirements list, you assess against architectural principles.
The result is often surprising. Organisations discover that their shortlist should look different. Sometimes they realise they are not ready for any major platform change. Occasionally, they find that a smaller, more focused solution better serves their actual needs than the enterprise suite they assumed they required.
Running an Honest Evaluation
If you are committed to making a genuinely informed platform decision, consider these principles:
Acknowledge existing preferences openly. If key stakeholders have strong inclinations, surface them early. Hidden agendas do not disappear; they simply distort the process.
Separate discovery from evaluation. Spend time understanding your own needs and constraints before inviting vendor input. Once vendors are involved, their narratives inevitably shape your thinking.
Evaluate implementation risk, not just platform capability. The best platform poorly implemented will underperform a good platform well implemented. Assess your organisation's realistic capacity to absorb change.
Challenge the assumption of transformation. Not every platform decision needs to be transformational. Sometimes incremental improvement through better use of existing investments delivers more value with less risk.
Accept that perfect information is impossible. No evaluation process will eliminate uncertainty. Focus on understanding the most consequential risks rather than cataloguing every possible consideration.
The Courage to Choose Differently
The hardest moment in any platform selection is when the evidence points away from the expected answer. When the thorough evaluation suggests that the platform everyone assumed would win is not actually the right choice. Or when it reveals that the organisation is not ready for any of the options under consideration.
These moments test whether an organisation genuinely wanted an honest evaluation or merely wanted validation of a decision already made. The willingness to change direction based on evidence, even when politically difficult, separates organisations that make good technology decisions from those that simply make expensive ones.
Platform selection does not have to be theatre. With architectural clarity, honest stakeholder dialogue, and the courage to follow evidence over assumption, organisations can make decisions that genuinely serve their strategic interests.
The question is not whether "best fit" exists. It is whether you are willing to discover what it actually means for your organisation, even if the answer is unexpected.
