Use hard gates first, then compare trade-offs. The following is the desk’s proposed scouting software evaluation scorecard structure, not an industry-certified scoring system.
| Decision area | Must be established before approval | What can be compared after the gate is passed |
|---|---|---|
| Rights | Intended essential uses are authorised | Administrative burden and flexibility |
| Coverage | Required evidence exists within the agreed scope | Breadth beyond priority requirements |
| Identity and provenance | Critical records and consequential claims are sufficiently reliable | Automation and exception-handling effort |
| Operational fit | Authorised staff can complete the essential workflow | Speed, usability and support |
| Additional value | A relevant gap is closed, or a worthwhile workflow improvement is demonstrated | Magnitude and frequency of benefit |
| Cost and continuity | Full obligations and exit implications are understood | Competing commercial structures |
Do not invent a universal acceptable error rate. Agree severity and tolerances with the club before testing. A wrong-player merge and a cosmetic formatting error should not contribute equally to a purchasing verdict.
The final decision should be one of six explicit outcomes:
- Retain: the current supplier meets the requirement.
- Add: another supplier contributes justified additional capability.
- Replace: the new option meets must-retain needs and the transition is workable.
- Consolidate: contracts can be simplified without losing required evidence or rights.
- Build: a bounded internal integration or analytical project better addresses the gap.
- Buy nothing: the need is unproved, the evidence is insufficient or the cost and burden are unjustified.