A quantitative decision matrix for increasing value for both buyers and sellers: LESSONS LEARNED

With hindsight, the quantitative matrix worked very well. There are, however, two key lessons learned throughout this process. First, each vendor showed great strengths in each different area. However, once the final selection decision was made, the key criterion that seemed to be the greatest differentiator was the chemistry between the vendor and the organisation. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to place a greater weighting on the chemistry criterion in the future. Interestingly, as shown in Figure 2, ‘chemistry’ was indicated as a key criterion requiring a minimum rating, but was assigned a medium weighting. This may be an indication that all key criteria should be assigned a high weighting.

The second lesson from this process reinforced the need for managerial judgment and sensitivity to organisational realities. While the model provides an objective and quantitative decision-making tool to help cut through to the important decision-making elements of vendor selection, it is not a crutch on which the selection team can lean. Involving key stakeholders in sales, marketing and distribution is an important process for enhancing organisational readiness and buy-in.


This model was developed and used in a consulting assignment for a Canadian financial services company whose products and services span insurance, banking and investment management offerings. While the model and its associated criteria have not yet been replicated in other Canadian or global financial service organisations, the authors believe that the unique generality of the model and its adaptability in criteria and criteria weighting makes it a feasible research vendor selection tool for any financial service organisation in the industry today. Furthermore, although further testing has not been done, it is quite possible that this tool could reach beyond the financial industry and into other industries requiring quantitative decision-making tools.


There are several key implications for further research into the quantitative approach to decision making that became evident during this process.
— Was the process responsible in a positive manner for the common criteria understanding and similar distribution of individual criteria values or did the model taint the process in that it created pressure on the team to think in a predefined capacity and thus biased the decision making?
— With a subjective methodology for determining the evaluation criteria and their associated weighting, were the right criteria chosen and/or were the appropriate weightings assigned?
— Is a quantitative process suitable for group decisions where the dynamics and experience of the group foster a combination of quantitative- and qualitative-oriented individuals?

Representative APR 391%. Average APR for this type of loans is 391%. Let's say you want to borrow $100 for two week. Lender can charge you $15 for borrowing $100 for two weeks. You will need to return $115 to the lender at the end of 2 weeks. The cost of the $100 loan is a $15 finance charge and an annual percentage rate of 391 percent. If you decide to roll over the loan for another two weeks, lender can charge you another $15. If you roll-over the loan three times, the finance charge would climb to $60 to borrow the $100.

Implications of Non-payment: Some lenders in our network may automatically roll over your existing loan for another two weeks if you don't pay back the loan on time. Fees for renewing the loan range from lender to lender. Most of the time these fees equal the fees you paid to get the initial payday loan. We ask lenders in our network to follow legal and ethical collection practices set by industry associations and government agencies. Non-payment of a payday loan might negatively effect your credit history.

Calculate APR