Solutions

Where PROVE supports consequential technology decisions in the built environment.

New technology selection, RFP development and evaluation, renewal, replacement and vendor review — the decisions where a defensible answer matters more than a fast one.

Discuss a decision See how PROVE works →

Why these decisions become difficult

The symptoms usually show up before the shortlist does.

Consequential technology decisions rarely fail at the last meeting. They drift earlier — in how requirements are collected, how vendor claims are read and how evidence is recorded. These are the recurring patterns.

Fragmented evidence
Requirements, vendor claims and stakeholder input live in different documents and inboxes.
Conflicting stakeholder priorities
Workplace, IT, Procurement and Finance weigh the same decision on different criteria.
Inconsistent requirements
The same capability is described differently across teams and across vendors.
Uncertain vendor claims
Marketing statements are hard to separate from evidenced capability.
Poor comparability
Options cannot be assessed like-for-like on the criteria that matter.
Weak auditability
Six months later, no one can explain exactly why a vendor was chosen.

Decision situations

Four situations where PROVE creates value today.

Each situation has its own trigger, its own failure mode and its own accountable stakeholders. PROVE structures the evidence and the decision record; qualified people retain judgement and approval.

Situation 01

New technology selection

A category is being adopted for the first time — indoor air quality, workplace analytics, energy sub-metering, access control — with no incumbent to fall back on.

Trigger: A strategic programme, portfolio initiative or regulatory shift creates a requirement that no existing system covers.
Typical failure mode: Requirements are collected informally, vendor claims are read at face value, and the shortlist is defended on relationships rather than evidence.
Stakeholders: Workplace or Real Estate lead, IT, Procurement, Security, Finance, executive sponsor.

How PROVE supports the decision

Structures the decision question and organisational requirements.
Maps vendor capability against those requirements with source lineage.
Surfaces missing information and open assumptions before shortlisting.

Evidence

Requirement library, vendor product records, security and integration attestations, reference calls, pilot findings.

Accountable human role

The workplace or technology sponsor accountable for the programme retains approval and sign-off.

Decision output

A weighted shortlist with visible gaps, recorded assumptions, and a defensible Proof Report.

Situation 02

RFP development and evaluation

A formal RFP is being written or evaluated and the organisation needs a defensible, comparable answer at the end of it.

Trigger: Procurement policy, board mandate or capital-cycle timing requires a formal request-for-proposal process.
Typical failure mode: Responses arrive in inconsistent formats, evaluators score against different mental models, and the recommendation is difficult to audit six months later.
Stakeholders: Procurement, IT, Workplace or Real Estate, Legal, Finance, evaluation panel.

How PROVE supports the decision

Structures RFP requirements and weightings before issue.
Analyses responses side-by-side against those weightings.
Records evaluator scoring, challenge and rationale in one place.

Evidence

RFP requirement set, vendor responses, clarification questions, evaluator scoring, dissent and challenge notes.

Accountable human role

The evaluation panel and its named chair remain responsible for scoring, trade-offs and the recommendation.

Decision output

A comparable evaluation, recorded scoring history and an auditable Proof Report supporting award or re-issue.

Situation 03

Renewal

An existing contract is coming up for renewal and the organisation needs to decide whether the incumbent is still the right answer.

Trigger: A contract renewal window, price change, service-level dispute or business-strategy shift forces a live decision.
Typical failure mode: Renewal defaults to the incumbent because switching feels risky, and the decision is not evidenced against current organisational need.
Stakeholders: Contract owner, IT, Procurement, Facilities, Finance, workplace or portfolio lead.

How PROVE supports the decision

Compares current performance against the original requirements and today's requirements.
Surfaces gaps, unresolved issues and evidence of alternatives.
Records the renewal rationale — including a deliberate decision to renew.

Evidence

Original requirements, in-service performance data, incident and support history, market alternatives, stakeholder input.

Accountable human role

The named contract owner retains responsibility for renewal, renegotiation or exit.

Decision output

A recorded renewal decision with evidence, alternatives considered and a Proof Report attached to the contract file.

Situation 04

Replacement

An incumbent system is being replaced and the organisation needs to justify the change and pick a credible successor.

Trigger: End-of-life notice, unresolved risk, integration failure, cost pressure or a change of workplace strategy.
Typical failure mode: The case for replacement is argued informally, and the successor is selected under time pressure without a structured comparison.
Stakeholders: System owner, IT, Security, Procurement, Facilities, workplace or portfolio lead, executive sponsor.

How PROVE supports the decision

Structures the case for replacement against organisational requirements and risk.
Analyses candidate successors on the same evidence basis.
Records the transition assumptions, dependencies and residual risks.

Evidence

Incumbent performance and risk history, replacement requirements, candidate vendor evidence, migration assumptions.

Accountable human role

The system owner and executive sponsor retain responsibility for the replacement decision and its consequences.

Decision output

A documented replacement decision, a comparable shortlist and a Proof Report covering rationale, risks and transition scope.

Also supported

Vendor review and due diligence

PROVE structures factual vendor evidence, identifies missing information and supports an independent review — so a periodic vendor check, a security-driven reassessment or a partner qualification can be handled on the same evidence basis as a full selection.

Vendors contribute factual product and company information and cannot pay to influence scoring, rankings or recommendations.

Explore Vendor Intelligence

Stakeholder alignment

Consequential decisions involve more than one accountable owner.

Technology decisions in the built environment rarely sit with one team. PROVE provides a shared evidence and decision structure so different functions can contribute requirements, review the same evidence and record their input in one place — without surrendering their own responsibility.

Workplace and Real Estate
IT
Procurement
Facilities
Security
Finance
Transformation
Executive sponsors

Qualified people remain responsible for priorities, trade-offs, verification, challenge, approval and final accountability.

Illustrative example — RFP development and evaluation

One worked pathway, from question to Proof Report.

The following narrative is illustrative. It describes the intended shape of a PROVE-supported RFP evaluation and does not represent a specific customer engagement.

01
Initial decision question
A portfolio team frames the question: replace the current workplace analytics platform for a 40-building estate.
02
Organisational requirements
Workplace, IT, Security, Procurement and Finance contribute weighted requirements to a shared requirement set.
03
Evidence collection
Vendor responses, security attestations and reference-call notes are captured against those requirements with source lineage.
04
Vendor comparison
Responses are analysed side-by-side, gaps and unverifiable claims are surfaced explicitly rather than smoothed over.
05
Stakeholder challenge
Named reviewers challenge scoring, request clarifications and record dissent inside the same evaluation.
06
Recommendation
The evaluation panel produces a recommendation with weighted rationale, residual risks and open assumptions.
07
Approval
The named sponsor approves, rejects or defers. The decision — and its reasoning — is recorded.
08
Proof Report
An auditable Proof Report is produced and attached to the contract file for future renewal or audit.

Decision outcome

What a defensible technology decision should leave behind.

The value of PROVE is not a recommendation on a slide — it is the record that lets the organisation stand behind that recommendation later.

See the PROVE operating model See how a decision is structured in PROVE

Documented requirements
Traceable evidence
Transparent comparison
Recorded assumptions
Visible risks and missing information
Accountable ownership
Recommendation status
Approval history
Auditable Proof Report

Who works with PROVE

Organisations lead the decision. An ecosystem supports the evidence.

Primary audience

Organisations

Enterprise organisations use PROVE to structure, evaluate, justify and govern consequential technology decisions across workplace, portfolio and built-environment programmes.

Discuss a decision

Ecosystem participant

Vendors

Vendors maintain accurate factual product and company information and support evidence verification. They cannot influence scoring or recommendations.

Vendor Intelligence

Ecosystem participant

Partners and experts

Independent partners, consultants and subject-matter experts contribute expertise, challenge and contextual judgement to organisational decisions.

Contact PROVE

Bring us a real decision

Have a live technology decision on the table? Let's talk through it.

Selection, RFP, renewal, replacement or a vendor question — walk us through it and we will show how PROVE would structure the evidence and the decision.

Discuss a decision