# Technical Solution Evaluation & Selection Template

> **Project Name:** [XX System / Platform] Technical Solution Evaluation
> **Evaluation Date:** [YYYY / MM / DD]
> **Version:** V[X.X]

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Project Background & Objectives](#1-project-background--objectives)
2. [Technical Requirements Specification](#2-technical-requirements-specification)
3. [Candidate Solution Overview](#3-candidate-solution-overview)
4. [Evaluation Framework & Weights](#4-evaluation-framework--weights)
5. [Detailed Solution Assessment](#5-detailed-solution-assessment)
6. [PoC / Proof-of-Concept Design](#6-poc--proof-of-concept-design)
7. [TCO Comparison (5-year)](#7-tco-comparison-5-year)
8. [Risk Assessment Matrix](#8-risk-assessment-matrix)
9. [Recommended Solution & Rationale](#9-recommended-solution--rationale)
10. [Implementation Roadmap](#10-implementation-roadmap)

---

## 1. Project Background & Objectives

### 1.1 Project Background

[Summarize business drivers: current pain points, technology-evolution need, industry trend. 2–3 paragraphs.]

> **Example:** "As daily traffic in [XX City] exceeds [XX] million vehicles, the existing traffic-management platform (built in 2018) suffers from tightly coupled architecture and limited scalability, with peak API response latency above [X] seconds. This technical evaluation selects the next-generation intelligent transport management platform architecture and core components to support the city's transport digitalization over the next five years."

### 1.2 Core Objectives

| No. | Business objective | Technical objective | Quantified metric | Priority |
|------|----------|----------|----------|:---:|
| G1 | [business objective] | [technical enabler] | [quantified metric] | P0 |
| G2 | [business objective] | [technical enabler] | [quantified metric] | P1 |

---

## 2. Technical Requirements Specification

### 2.1 Functional Requirements

| ID | Description | Priority (MoSCoW) | Acceptance criteria |
|------|----------|:---:|------|
| FR-001 | [description] | M | [verifiable criterion] |

### 2.2 Non-Functional Requirements

| ID | Category | Description | Quantified metric | Priority |
|------|------|----------|----------|:---:|
| NFR-001 | Performance | [requirement] | [value] | M |
| NFR-002 | Availability | [requirement] | [SLA level] | M |
| NFR-003 | Security | [requirement] | [standard / level] | M |
| NFR-004 | Scalability | [requirement] | [value] | S |
| NFR-005 | Interoperability | [integration requirement] | [interface standard] | M |

---

## 3. Candidate Solution Overview

| Solution | Vendor | Core architecture | Tech stack | Target market scale (reference) |
|------|------|------|------|:---:|
| Solution A | [vendor name] | [architecture summary] | [key tech] | [volume] |
| Solution B | [vendor name] | [architecture summary] | [key tech] | [volume] |
| Solution C | [vendor name] | [architecture summary] | [key tech] | [volume] |

---

## 4. Evaluation Framework & Weights

### 4.1 Five-Dimension Evaluation Model

| Dimension | Weight | Key items | Scoring method |
|------|:---:|------|------|
| **Technical architecture** | 35% | Modernity / scalability / openness / tech-stack maturity | Architecture review (3 architects score independently) |
| **Functional fit** | 30% | Scenario coverage / core-function depth / customization flexibility | Requirements-mapping matrix scoring |
| **Performance & reliability** | 15% | Throughput / latency / availability / DR | PoC measured data |
| **Implementation & O&M** | 12% | Deployment complexity / O&M toolchain / knowledge transfer | Implementation-plan review |
| **Commercial sustainability** | 8% | Vendor health / R&D investment / ecosystem | Vendor due diligence |

### 4.2 Scoring Scale

| Level | Score | Definition |
|:---:|:---:|------|
| Excellent | 9–10 | Exceeds requirements; innovative highlights |
| Good | 7–8 | Fully meets requirements |
| Adequate | 5–6 | Partially meets; controllable gaps |
| Insufficient | 3–4 | Clear deficiencies |
| Non-compliant | 1–2 | Fails core requirements |

---

## 5. Detailed Solution Assessment

### 5.1 Technical Architecture Assessment

| Sub-item | A | B | C | Note |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|------|
| Architecture modernity | /10 | /10 | /10 | |
| Scalability | /10 | /10 | /10 | |
| Openness & interoperability | /10 | /10 | /10 | API standard / data format / ecosystem |
| Tech-stack maturity | /10 | /10 | /10 | |
| Security design | /10 | /10 | /10 | |
| **Architecture total** | **/50** | **/50** | **/50** | |

### 5.2 Functional Fit Assessment

| Domain | Weight | A | B | C |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Core function A | 30% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Core function B | 25% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Extended function | 20% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| User experience | 15% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Customization flexibility | 10% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| **Weighted total** | 100% | **/10** | **/10** | **/10** |

### 5.3 Composite Score Summary

| Dimension | Weight | A | B | C |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Technical architecture | 35% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Functional fit | 30% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Performance & reliability | 15% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Implementation & O&M | 12% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| Commercial sustainability | 8% | /10 | /10 | /10 |
| **Weighted total** | **100%** | **/10** | **/10** | **/10** |

---

## 6. PoC / Proof-of-Concept Design

### 6.1 PoC Scenario Selection

| ID | Scenario | Why selected | Validation focus | Success criterion |
|------|------|------|------|------|
| PoC-1 | [key scenario] | [why "must validate"] | [tech / func / perf] | [quantified] |
| PoC-2 | [high-risk scenario] | [why "high risk"] | [tech / func / perf] | [quantified] |

### 6.2 PoC Execution Plan

| Activity | A | B | C | Time |
|------|------|------|------|:---:|
| Environment prep | | | | Week 1 |
| Deploy & configure | | | | Week 2 |
| Functional validation | | | | Weeks 3–4 |
| Performance load test | | | | Week 5 |
| Evaluation report | | | | Week 6 |

---

## 7. TCO Comparison (5-year)

| Cost category | A | B | C | Note |
|------|------|------|------|------|
| Software license / subscription | | | | |
| Hardware & infrastructure | | | | |
| Cloud / data-centre | | | | |
| System integration & customization | | | | |
| O&M (annual × 5) | | | | |
| Personnel effort | | | | |
| Training & knowledge transfer | | | | |
| **5-year TCO total** | | | | |

---

## 8. Risk Assessment Matrix

| Risk | Likelihood (1–5) | Impact (1–5) | Level | A | B | C | Mitigation |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|------|
| Vendor lock-in | 4 | 4 | High | | | | Require open API / data exportability |
| Technology-road change | 3 | 4 | Medium-High | | | | Contractual upgrade guarantee |
| Performance shortfall | 2 | 5 | Medium-High | | | | Thorough load test in PoC |
| Schedule slip | 3 | 3 | Medium | | | | Phased delivery / milestone acceptance |
| Vendor business risk | 2 | 5 | Medium-High | | | | Vendor due diligence / source escrow |

---

## 9. Recommended Solution & Rationale

### 9.1 Recommendation

**Primary:** [Solution X]
**Alternative:** [Solution Y]

### 9.2 Rationale

**Technical:**
[Core advantages in architecture / functional fit / performance. 3–5 points.]

**Implementation:**
[Advantages in deployment difficulty / team fit / local support. 2–3 points.]

**Long-term value:**
[Advantages in scalability / ecosystem / tech evolution. 2–3 points.]

### 9.3 Key Assumptions & Dependencies

| ID | Assumption / dependency | Risk | Validation |
|------|------|:---:|------|
| A1 | [assumption] | [impact if unmet] | [method] |

---

## 10. Implementation Roadmap

| Phase | Time | Goal | Key activities | Milestone |
|------|:---:|------|------|------|
| Contract signing | M1 | Sign contract | Commercial negotiation / contract review | Contract effective |
| Detailed design | M2–M3 | Architecture complete | Detailed arch. / interface spec / data model | Design review passed |
| Development & integration | M4–M9 | Core delivery | Iterative dev / interface joint test / data migration | UAT passed |
| Deploy & go-live | M10–M11 | System live | Deploy / verify / pilot run | Cutover |
| Continuous optimization | M12+ | Stable ops + iteration | O&M / SLA / feature iteration | Quarterly review |

---

> **Usage note:** This template fits evaluation & selection of transport technical solutions (ITMS, signal control, digital-twin platform, data-analytics platform, etc.). Adjust dimensions and weights by project size. For projects < $0.5 M, simplify sections 5–10; for projects > $5 M, supplement with a standalone architecture-review report and security-assessment report.
