DimensionTraditional ApproachOutcomes-Driven (EOC)
Core FocusFeature comparison across 500+ requirements2–3 measurable business outcomes
DiscoveryFunctional requirements gatheringQuantify losses and cost of inaction
Vendor RoleCommodity evaluated at arms-lengthCollaborative partner proposing solutions
DemosFeature-by-feature checklist walkthroughsScenario-based around real business challenges
PricingRequested before vendor understands the businessDeveloped after meaningful operational context
Decision CriteriaWeighted functional scoring matrixClearest path to achieving target outcomes
Implementation SOW“Configure software modules”“Achieve defined outcomes with technology as enabler”
Success MetricGo-live date and budgetBusiness outcomes achieved 6–12 months post go-live
Client RoleRequirements provider and evaluatorActive partner in defining outcomes and owning change
Consultant RoleProject manager and scorekeeperStrategic advisor bridging goals and technology

The difference in practice

The comparison table above isn’t theoretical. It reflects the actual difference in how your team experiences the selection process, how vendors engage with your business, and ultimately whether the implementation delivers measurable results.

When vendors are invited to propose solutions to your specific outcomes rather than respond to a feature list, the quality of engagement changes dramatically. You see which vendors truly understand manufacturing and which are running a generic playbook. That insight is worth more than any scoring matrix.

See the Four-Phase Approach →

Next

Our Four-Phase Approach →
Ready?

Your ERP decision deserves a better process.

Whether you’re beginning an ERP evaluation or already in a selection process that isn’t working—let’s talk.

Start a Conversation
info@erpoutcomes.org 763-900-9827