It301 Unit 9 Project Kaplan
Unit 9 Project
Part 1: Vendor Evaluation BenchmarkVendor Evaluation Benchmark | | | Dell | HP | Acer | Toshiba | Asus | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Product Quality | 4 | 5 | 20 | 4 | 16 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 20 | Product Capabilities | 5 | 4 | 20 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 15 | 5 | 25 | Business Experience | 3 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | Reputation/History | 4 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 | Time in Business | 3 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | Warranty | 3 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9 | Cost | 5 | 3 | 15 | 4 | 20 | 5 | 25 | 4 | 20 | 3 | 15 | | Weighted Total= | | 107.00 | | 103.00 | | 81.00 | | 94.00 | | 103.00 |
Based on the researched value of goods and services provided by the individual laptop computer vendors, an assessment can be made to layout vendor procurement consideration in reference to evaluation criteria and respective weight to the requirements. In this Benchmark, five vendors were reviewed and an individual value was determined as a raw score to each evaluation criteria entry. Vendors were evaluated based on product quality, product capabilities, known business experience, reputation and history, length of time the company has been in business, warranty terms, and estimated cost. Scores were based on a scale of one to five, with one being not very good and five being very good. Based on data collected, vendor consideration should be shown in order of preference in the following diagram.
Vendor | Weighted Total | Dell | 107 | HP | 103 | Asus | 103 | Toshiba | 94 | Acer | 81 |
In relation to the data collected, preference should be to utilize the Del l as the vendor of choice to purchase a laptop, as the cost and capabilities of the vendor are most in line with the business requirements of the
Part 1: Vendor Evaluation BenchmarkVendor Evaluation Benchmark | | | Dell | HP | Acer | Toshiba | Asus | Evaluation Criteria | Weight | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Raw score | Weighted Score | Product Quality | 4 | 5 | 20 | 4 | 16 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 20 | Product Capabilities | 5 | 4 | 20 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 15 | 5 | 25 | Business Experience | 3 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | Reputation/History | 4 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 | Time in Business | 3 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | Warranty | 3 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9 | Cost | 5 | 3 | 15 | 4 | 20 | 5 | 25 | 4 | 20 | 3 | 15 | | Weighted Total= | | 107.00 | | 103.00 | | 81.00 | | 94.00 | | 103.00 |
Based on the researched value of goods and services provided by the individual laptop computer vendors, an assessment can be made to layout vendor procurement consideration in reference to evaluation criteria and respective weight to the requirements. In this Benchmark, five vendors were reviewed and an individual value was determined as a raw score to each evaluation criteria entry. Vendors were evaluated based on product quality, product capabilities, known business experience, reputation and history, length of time the company has been in business, warranty terms, and estimated cost. Scores were based on a scale of one to five, with one being not very good and five being very good. Based on data collected, vendor consideration should be shown in order of preference in the following diagram.
Vendor | Weighted Total | Dell | 107 | HP | 103 | Asus | 103 | Toshiba | 94 | Acer | 81 |
In relation to the data collected, preference should be to utilize the Del l as the vendor of choice to purchase a laptop, as the cost and capabilities of the vendor are most in line with the business requirements of the
References: Acer. (2011). Notebooks|product group. Retrieved from http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/group/notebooks ASUS. (2011). Asus commercial products. Retrieved from http://commercial.asus.com/category/index/3 Dell. (2011). Technology solutions for small and medium business. Retrieved from http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/ Heldman, K. (2009). Pmp: project management professional exam study guide. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc. HP. (2011). Hp laptops, tablets & notebooks. Retrieved from http://www.hp.com/sbso/busproducts_notebooks.html PMI. (2011). Project management institute code of ethics and professional conduct. Retrieved from http://www.pmi.org/en/About- Us/Ethics/~/media/PDF/Ethics/ap_pmicodeofethics.ashx Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (pmbok guide) | fourth edition. Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc. Toshiba. (2011). Toshiba|laptops. Retrieved from http://us.toshiba.com/computers/laptops