Media Asset Management is at the core of effective tapeless working. Choosing the right MAM isn't easy.

In 2008 Mediasmiths were engaged by a major broadcaster to assist with the selection of a Media Asset Management (MAM) technology vendor that would form the heart of the enterprise file based system. This work involved the creation of RFI and RFP documents and the management of the selection process.

Mediasmiths took a radically different approach to the norm, by producing a RFP that focused on future workflows and vendors’ capability to support those workflows rather than a more traditional compliance matrix approach. This approach allowed the client to assess the capabilities of each vendor to deliver in future, providing greater insight into the companies than the more traditional approach in which vendors attempt to comply against a large set of mainly current requirements.

The last two vendors were put through a rapid on-site review that consisted of technical workshops to assess non-functional capabilities, and user-driven role-plays to capture functional capabilities. In conjunction this more innovative approach to vendor management, we also deployed our structured selection analysis tool, that captures the main selection criteria of stakeholders and produces a more quantitative and graphical representation of vendors’ strengths and weaknesses. Our method involved the client populating the selection tool based on vendors’ performance. By focusing on future workflows throughout, we were able to capture quantitative results from the role play by creating test scripts that users would work through. This allowed the customer to focus on highly targeted features that were deemed essential e.g. was desktop editing sufficient to allow production staff to cut video at their desks, rather than vague and subjective response that are typical of unstructured user demos e.g. "I didn’t like the page layout."

The more quantitative approach helped to remove emotion and subjectivity from the process, and helped focus the customer on what was important for the success of the project. As a result the outcome was a selection process that was completed in five months, consensual agreement on the final selection, and a structured and rigorous selection approach that allowed the customer to fully own the entire process.