How we buy technology

Organizations can pretend to make an objective choice. But it is not as easy as it seems.

Technology is hard. We react to them emotionally. This changes the balance of power between people, provoking them to a political reaction. Manufacturers are trying to confuse us, not telling what and how it works in reality.
')


Most organizations benefit from this. They rely on “objective” decision making, on measuring their capabilities against the background of small losses in functionality.

By “weighting” the importance of each technology, a variant with clear criteria is determined, and organizations believe that they ultimately found an option with an objectively “best” solution.

Thus, in the end, it all comes down to an evaluation table. Each line lists some of the features or options that someone defined “important” and “required”. Each of these features is weighted according to its degree of importance.

Then in the columns place all the choices. Each cell is filled with points, depending on how well this option provides the desired capabilities, which allows you to calculate the score for each option. Choose the one with the highest weighted score - and you have the best technology for your needs.

The problem is that it almost never works.

For a start, the function and weight of the points are not objective. Someone collects requirements and throws away as they become available. People start arguing about the weights of the points. Ultimately, everything is decided by a person with the greatest power. We have just moved the policy to the table structure itself.

The evaluation process is no better. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people who score, and then correct them countless times to allow their favorite technology to come out ahead.

They have already made a choice - evaluation is just a rationalization for their decision.

The main problem is that the selection process itself ignores the way people make decisions. By hiding “irrationality” behind the appearance of objectivity, we actually make it as difficult for people as possible to make the right decision.

Studies of the decision-making process by experts show that they rarely reflect on a variety of options and on evaluation through objective “decision criteria”.

In a situation where they have to process a lot of information and balance the interests of different points of view, experts should go through the following stages:

At first they imagine themselves in this situation.

1. They define one function that will most likely satisfy their needs.
2. They test this function, in their mind, using the example of the current situation.
3. If this function works well enough, they do not spend time on further analysis. They apply it in action.
4. If this function does not work, they adapt and adjust it in mind. If they can find a way to make it work, they use it.
5. If they cannot find a way to make it work as they should, they look for other options.
6. They can go through this cycle several times, using screening, testing, and adapting opportunities to improve their understanding of the situation. They develop an acceptable solution.
7. Experts can do this surprisingly quickly. Firefighters and other emergency workers go through this “loop of choice” in deadly situations in fractions of a second.

In the future, they may adjust their decisions under the objective framework, explain what they did, but this will not be quite the way they made this decision for the first time.

Of course, very rarely the lives of people depend on our choice of technology. But to pretend that we make decisions, conducting a thorough analysis of options with predetermined selection criteria has negative consequences. For example:

We spend time on defining the scope of our decisions. If people do not use them, it is no use to anyone trash. Even worse, the framework forces people to focus on the details of individual characteristics, which prevents them from seeing the big picture. We hide the real decision-making criteria.

We make them easier to allow manufacturers to beat the system. They can play with features and get better results in this game than end users.
We overlook the following complexity - exactly how people use technology. They are hidden in the table. We do not keep solid rears for making changes before we begin to implement the selected technologies.
Marketers understand this dynamic well. To make technology easier for people to imagine themselves in their situation - a new car, a new jacket, a holiday - and they are already halfway to the sale. Long lists of different attributes appear later, and often only if obfuscation is necessary. (Think about cellular tariff plans and their pricing - they are designed to hide the differences between brands, but not to promote rational decision-making).

What does this mean for us when we have to purchase a system, choose an agency, or, on the contrary, decide on technologies?

To begin with, we have to present ourselves in the situation that we are trying to solve. What happens if we start using this system, work with this agency, etc.? You need to write a script, not make lists, and directly ask sellers to explain how their technology is appropriate for each scenario.

Secondly, we must give ourselves a gap of time for each option in order to be able to experience how they actually work. Show presentations from the manufacturer is not enough. Pilot projects are an ideal choice, or at least practical workshops, where we can try to choose options for ourselves during the procurement process.

We are not firefighters. Our lives do not depend on a couple of seconds spent on our decisions. So it makes sense to balance the choice of solutions based on scenarios with some thoughts about the possibilities, functionality and weight of the various options. This can help us fill in some of the gaps and white spots in our thinking.

But we should not allow “objectivity” to get rid of an honest understanding of how we make decisions. When we use scenarios and adaptive assessment options, we work to identify our strengths. Starting from there, and using decision support tools, this will in the end allow us to expand our capabilities. But do not allow additional tools to manage the entire process.

UPD: Links on the subject of an article from alex_and_r comments