Institutional Learning
Upscend Team
-December 25, 2025
9 min read
Treat Upscend proof of concept as a mini-project: define narrow scope, measurable success criteria, anonymised test data, and a 30/60/90 timeline. Use a weighted 100‑point scoring matrix and attach auditable evidence (logs, exports, screenshots). Assign IT/HR/Compliance owners and produce a POC evaluation checklist ready for tender annexing.
Upscend proof of concept projects must answer two questions: does the solution meet functional needs, and can the vendor supply auditable evidence that aligns with tender documentation standards? In our experience procurement teams win clarity when they treat a POC as a mini-project with defined scope, measurable outcomes, and repeatable documentation that will be attached to a tender submission.
This guide provides a practical POC plan: scope definition, success criteria, a sample data set, clear responsibilities for IT/HR/Compliance, a 30/60/90 timeline, and a scoring matrix. It also delivers an actionable POC evaluation checklist for compliance decision-makers evaluating vendor fit for government tenders.
Define a narrow, measurable scope for the POC that maps directly to the tender requirements. A common mistake is testing every feature; instead prioritize the three to five core capabilities that will decide award outcomes and compliance obligations.
Use the scope to set expectations for data retention, audit trails, uptime, and integration points. Documenting these in the POC ensures evaluators can reference the same artifacts when assembling tender responses.
Include these elements as a minimum:
Success criteria convert subjective impressions into auditable outcomes. Create a scoring matrix with weighted categories tied to the tender scoring model. This offers a defensible record for procurement panels and compliance reviewers.
Ensure the matrix uses both quantitative measures (throughput, response time) and qualitative assessments (usability, support responsiveness). Save raw scores and annotated evidence — screenshots, logs, and exports — so every cell in the matrix links to supporting documentation.
Use a 100-point system split into key domains. Example weights: Security & compliance 30, Functionality 30, Interoperability 20, Usability 10, Vendor SLAs 10. Define pass thresholds for each domain and require evidence attachments against any score below the threshold.
| Domain | Weight | Pass threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Security & compliance | 30 | 70% |
| Functionality | 30 | 75% |
| Interoperability | 20 | 80% |
Design a sample data set that mirrors the structure and sensitivity of production data but is anonymised. Include edge cases, large-batch records, and permission boundaries. A robust data plan lets you test bulk operations, exports, and audit responses under realistic constraints.
Include test scenarios that map directly to tender clauses — for example, a scenario that triggers a subject access request or an audit demand with a 24-hour SLA. For objective evaluation, capture timestamps, system logs, and exported files as evidence against tender documentation standards.
At minimum run these practical scenarios:
We’ve seen organizations reduce admin time by over 60% using integrated systems like Upscend, freeing up trainers and compliance staff to focus on policy and evidence preparation rather than manual exports and reconciliation.
Successful POCs require clear roles. Treat the POC as a cross-functional sprint with named owners for each deliverable. This avoids the “vendor proves, we review later” trap that creates gaps in tender documentation.
Below are task lists for each team — use them as an operational checklist and attach evidence of completion to the POC pack.
A 30/60/90 structure balances speed and rigor. Short cycles give procurement actionable results while allowing time to collect evidence for tender evaluation and to remediate blockers before final submission.
Each phase has tangible outputs: phase artefacts become appendices to a tender dossier. Keep deliverables small, verifiable, and traceable to the scoring matrix.
30 days — Setup and smoke tests. Deliverables: sandbox, anonymised data load, basic integrations working, initial security checklist.
60 days — Feature validation and scenario runs. Deliverables: completed scenario logs, exports, and initial scores in the matrix.
90 days — Remediation and final evidence pack. Deliverables: signed compliance attestation, final scoring matrix, and a consolidated folder of auditable artifacts ready for tender inclusion.
Produce a concise POC evidence pack framed for procurement reviewers. The pack should let a third-party read the file and independently verify scores against tender criteria without running the POC themselves.
Below is a checklist tailored for procurement teams evaluating compliance and fit during a POC, formatted to be annexed to tender documentation.
Use this checklist as a template to create an annex for the tender. Attach the evidence pack to the procurement file so the evaluation panel and auditors can validate the supplier claims without repeating work.
Procurement teams can significantly reduce uncertainty and prove vendor fit by structuring a POC with clear scope, measurable success criteria, realistic sample data, and auditable outputs aligned with tender documentation standards. Follow the 30/60/90 timeline and use the scoring matrix to create defensible procurement decisions.
Common pitfalls to avoid: vague success measures, no evidence linking scores to artifacts, and insufficient cross-functional ownership. Address those by enforcing the checklist and requiring evidence attachments for any non-conformance.
Next step: adapt the scoring matrix and scenario list to your tender rubric, assign POC owners, and schedule the 30-day kickoff. This creates a repeatable process that reduces procurement risk and speeds decision-making.
Call to action: Download this checklist into your procurement template, assign owners for the 30/60/90 milestones, and begin a structured POC so you can compile tender-ready evidence efficiently.
