How the decision was made
Requirements first. Criteria before demos. Cost over five years.
A platform decision is defensible when the criteria exist before anyone has seen a product. The order below is the order the work ran in. Each step produced a document the next step scored against.
Discover the requirements
24 stakeholder interviews across 6 departments. 47 requirements documented, including 12 federal compliance obligations (TILA, RESPA, ECOA, HMDA and eight others). A learning roadmap aligned to the firm's 3-year growth objectives.
Write and weight the criteria
Twelve criteria, weighted with the six stakeholder groups before any vendor was contacted. Compliance capability, scalability, API depth and five-year total cost of ownership are the four the report publishes.
Score in the room
Ten platforms evaluated. Fifteen demos, with cross-functional teams scoring against the same criteria. Security assessments performed before the recommendation.
Decide, then negotiate
One recommendation with the trade-offs stated. Enterprise contract negotiated with the selected vendor. Board approval secured in week eight.
The scorecard
Five platforms, scored on the four published criteria.
The ten platforms evaluated included these five, which the engagement report scores in full. The remaining eight criteria and the weights are available in interview.
| Platform | Compliance | Scalability | API integration | 5-year TCO | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cornerstone | Excellent | Enterprise | Full suite | $285K | Selected |
| Docebo | Good | Good | Limited | $198K | Finalist |
| Absorb | Good | Good | Good | $215K | Finalist |
| TalentLMS | Basic | Good | Limited | $89K | Evaluated |
| SAP Litmos | Good | Enterprise | Complex | $342K | Evaluated |
Compliance: how far the platform records, gates and reports mandatory training without manual steps.API integration: what connects without custom work (HRIS, ticketing, later the CRM).
Why not the cheapest finalist
$87K more over five years, chosen on purpose.
Lowest finalist. Compliance scored Good; API integration Limited, which would have left HRIS, ticketing and audit reporting as manual or custom work.
Compliance scored Excellent and the API suite was full, so provisioning, records and reporting could be connected rather than maintained by hand.
Manual tracking eliminated ($45K), onboarding 21 days to 8 ($52K), audit preparation ($30K). The annual savings after launch exceeded the five-year license difference.
The recommendation, in one sentence: pay for the integration and compliance depth, because in a regulated firm the cost of a platform is mostly what people do around it by hand. The board approved on that basis; the audit result (zero findings) and the savings are in the engagement report.
Reusing the method
What transfers to any platform decision.
- Criteria before demos. Written and weighted with the people who will live with the choice, before a vendor shapes the conversation.
- Score during the demo. Each stakeholder group scores against the same sheet while the demo is fresh. Memory flatters the last one seen.
- Five-year cost, not license price. Include what the gaps cost in people's time: tracking, reporting, integration maintenance.
- Security before contract. Assess the finalists, not the winner, so the finding cannot force a second choice.
- One recommendation with the trade-offs stated. A board can approve a decision it can see the shape of. A ranked list is not a decision.
This scorecard is an artifact of the Compliance-First Learning Ecosystem engagement. The same method scoped the later Cornerstone to Salesforce integration.