Vendor selection. When shopping for a new association management system (AMS) association executives want to move very cautiously since whatever product is chosen is one the association will live with for a very long time. Therefore, I strongly recommend retaining the services of an IT consulting firm specializing in guiding clients through the treacherous terrain of AMS acquisition when it comes time.
However, I'm more than a little befuddled when the same approach is taken by associations in selecting an election provider. (Perhaps it's just force of habit.) I recently received an RFP from a prospective client stating, "...the winning vendor will be awarded a two year contract..."
Why?
When purchasing an election service, you gain nothing by locking yourself into a multi-year agreement. Association elections are generally conducted annually, and for a limited length of time, so whatever system you choose is not something you'll live with day in and day out for the next two years. Consider this analogy, if you're going to purchase a car, would you like to make your decision based solely on the salesmen of 4 different carmakers giving you their best sales pitch? There's no test drive, and you don't even get to see the car you might ultimately own. You've got to go solely on the sales pitch. Or, would you rather be given the opportunity to drive the car you're considering for a period of one month prior to making your decision? Surely you chose the latter.
Why then an approach closer to the former scenario is used when shopping for an election provider is befuddling. In the for profit sector on the other hand, I do regularly see a different approach. One of my clients, a very high profile restaurant chain, uses the services of ElectionsOnline and also my leading competitor. This has been going on for about a year now as this client fires off small scale, regional elections on a regular basis--about six per year. While I'd of course like to have all their business to myself, this client deserves kudos for taking an approach that permits getting very familiar with the capabilities of both systems. One day they may decide to choose one over the other, but they're not tying their hands behind their back with long-term legal agreements. They also understand quite well, that they are forever free to go back and forth at will sending a message to the vendors, "Hey, you're only as good as the last election, so keep innovating to stay ahead."
As it should be.
Comments