Tiếng ViệtMost SMBs in Vietnam choose ERP software based on an impressive demo, a referral from a familiar partner, or simply the lowest price among three quotes received.
The result is that after 6–12 months, many businesses discover the system cannot support their actual workflows, costs have exceeded the budget, or the vendor lacks the capacity for long-term support. This article introduces an ERP evaluation template with 47 criteria, developed by the Sonix team based on real-world implementation experience with SMB clients across multiple industries.
Table of Contents
💡 A good evaluation framework is not about finding the ‘perfect’ system — it helps your business clearly see what trade-offs you are making when choosing one vendor over another.
Common Challenge
The Problem: Choosing ERP on Gut Feeling and Paying for It All Year
An Unstructured Vendor Selection Process
In many discovery projects, Sonix has observed that SMBs typically invite 2–3 vendors to demo, collect individual impressions from each attendee, and then make a decision based on ‘who was more convincing.’
There is no scorecard, no weighting for each criterion, and no way to compare apples to apples across quotes with different scopes of work. According to Gartner’s definition, ERP is inherently a long-term investment for the entire organization, making the absence of clear criteria from the outset a significant risk.
The Consequences of Having No Evaluation Criteria
The most common outcome is selecting the wrong system for the company’s size or industry, leading to excessive customization or a full replacement within 1–2 years.
Actual costs typically run far higher than the initial quote because line items such as integrations, training, and post-go-live support are never clarified upfront.
No Common Measuring Stick
Each vendor presents differently, making direct comparison nearly impossible.
Hidden Costs Surface After Signing
Integrations, training, and Year 2 support are rarely included in the initial quote.
Template Structure
Structure of the 47-Criteria Evaluation Framework
Five Criterion Groups, Each with Its Own Weight
Rather than listing 47 standalone questions, the template is divided into 5 groups so businesses can assign weights according to their own priorities.
A manufacturing company may place greater emphasis on the core functional group, while a financial services firm may prioritize the security and compliance group.
How Scoring Works
Each criterion is scored on a 1–5 scale, then multiplied by the group weight to produce a total score.
This approach forces the evaluation team to discuss each item specifically rather than simply forming a general impression of the vendor. Independent research organizations such as Capterra also recommend a similar weighted approach when comparing enterprise software.
47
Detailed evaluation criteria
5
Weighted criterion groups
1–5
Scoring scale per criterion
| Criterion Group | Count | Suggested Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Core Business Functionality | 14 criteria | 30% |
| Scalability & Integration | 9 criteria | 20% |
| User Experience & Implementation | 8 criteria | 15% |
| Cost & Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) | 7 criteria | 20% |
| Security, Compliance & Long-Term Support | 9 criteria | 15% |
Usage Guide
How to Use the Template to Compare Vendors
The template works best when used as an internal discussion tool before meeting any vendor.
Do not simply fill it in after a demo — the process needs to start earlier, following the four steps below.
| Step | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Assign Internal Weights | Leadership and department heads align on weights for the 5 groups | Complete before meeting any vendor |
| 2. Share with Vendors in Advance | Share the list of 47 criteria so vendors can prepare a focused demo | Ensures the demo addresses your actual needs |
| 3. Score Immediately After the Demo | Each team member scores independently on a 1–5 scale | Avoid delays — impressions blur across vendors over time |
| 4. Aggregate Weighted Scores | Multiply scores by group weights and sum for a total score | Score gaps under 5% should be treated as a tie |
Broader Perspective
Common Mistakes When Evaluating ERP
Even with a complete set of criteria, applying them incorrectly can still lead to decisions no better than choosing by gut feeling.
The four mistakes below are situations Sonix encounters most frequently when helping clients evaluate vendors — see also independent community reviews on G2.
| Mistake | Consequence | How to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Assigning equal weight to all groups | Results do not reflect the business’s true priorities | Discuss weights with relevant department heads |
| Only one person scores | Individual bias, missing needs from other departments | Invite representatives from at least 3 departments to score independently |
| Ignoring the Cost & TCO group | Budget overruns after the first year of operation | Require vendors to quote Year 2 and beyond costs clearly |
| Choosing the highest scorer while ignoring cultural fit | Team resistance and low adoption rates post-go-live | Combine scores with reference interviews from the vendor’s existing clients |
| Takeaway | What It Means for Your Business |
|---|---|
| Weighting matters more than the number of criteria | 47 criteria are only useful when prioritized correctly for your industry. |
| Score independently, aggregate later | Reduces individual bias and reflects cross-departmental needs. |
| TCO must be clarified before signing | Avoids unexpected costs in Year 2 and Year 3. |
| A high score alone is not enough — real-world fit matters | Client reference checks help verify actual implementation capability. |
Struggling to choose between multiple ERP vendors?
Comment ‘ERP’ to receive the full 47-criteria template file (with scoring formula). Or book a free consultation so the Sonix team can help you build a custom evaluation framework tailored to your industry.
Sonix — Your success is our happiness.
Leave us your comment