Many companies have been there: They went through a methodical system evaluation process, they created a project charter, selected a project team and steering committee, defined use cases and requirements, identified a number of possible candidate systems, sent out an RFP to vendors, created a scoring matrix with evaluation criteria and weights, conducted system demonstrations, compared the different proposals, evaluated the vendor responses and finally came up with a clear result which PLM system is best suited for the organization. The only thing left is to make a decision and confirm the winner. 

But not so fast. Enter company politics and personal preferences. “If we have to go with this system we cannot do our work anymore”. “The weights are wrong, our department should have a higher percentage because we use the system more”. “This system is not scalable and cannot meet our long-term needs”. “This system is too much risk, none of our direct competitors are using it”. “All our competitors are using this system, how will we be able to differentiate ourselves?”. “I’ve worked with this system, it’s too hard to use”. “This system is too new”. “This system is too old”. Et cetera. 

All of a sudden the project team faces a slew of intangible criteria and never-before heard arguments against the highest scoring system of the 3-month evaluation. Why? Because the winning system is not the system some people wanted. So they run interference. And delay the decision. And question the entire selection process and demand a new evaluation. 

So what can be done to avoid situations like this? First and foremost, anticipate that there will be people who object the winner for a variety of reasons. It’s new and not what they are familiar with, they’ve had a bad experience with it at a previous company, they’ve heard bad things about it, they know or have a relationship with someone at one of the unsuccessful system vendors, and so on.

Secondly, preventatively talk about this scenario with the evaluation team and the steering committee before the project even starts. Tell everyone that this is a possible outcome and discuss with the team what should be done to avoid it. Get an agreement from everyone, ideally in writing, that no matter what the result of the evaluation is, the team will stand behind and defend it. 

Third, ensure that all members of the selection team and steering committee are aligned at each stage of the process, with formal sign-off required for every deliverable — including the project charter, use cases and requirements, RFP, scoring matrix, evaluation criteria and weights, as well as the scoring for system demos and vendor proposals. This approach prevents any assertions later that key elements were overlooked or that participants were not in agreement throughout the process.

In the end, a well-structured selection process is only as strong as the organization’s commitment to stand by its outcome. By anticipating objections, addressing political dynamics early, and ensuring alignment and accountability at every stage, companies can protect the integrity of their evaluation and avoid costly delays or even a redo. Selecting a PLM system is not just about choosing the best technology — it’s about building trust, transparency, and shared ownership in the decision. When all stakeholders are aligned on the process and principles from the start, the final decision becomes far easier to accept — and the selection project far more likely to succeed.