Automation of SACCOs - FSD Kenya

8 • AUTOMATION OF SACCOS: ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Table 1: Scoring rules
Fulfilment Description
Rejected Demonstrates a solution that does not
fulfil basic criteria, functionality is lacking,
and any oppxortunities to improve or
compensate are unrealistic.
Needs
improvement
Demonstrates a solution that does not
fulfil basic criteria in terms of what is
required to operate a SACCO.
Points
awarded
1
Acceptable Demonstrates a solution that is expected
to fulfil basic criteria in terms of what is
required to operate a SACCO but there are
significant improvement opportunities.
3
Good Demonstrates a solution that is good but
improvement opportunities are apparent
and the solution is inferior to what is
classified as best practice.
4
Excellent Demonstrates a best practice solution. 5
2.2.3 Software demonstrations
The final round of screening took place in the form of software demonstrations
held by the vendors. It was estimated to be appropriate to invite 6 vendors
in order to provide a sufficient selection after this final screening but also
considering the time required to truly understand the solutions at this stage
and the resources available to the project team. The choice of which vendors
to invite to this final round was based on the ranking produced when scoring
the RFI responses. However, certain vendors could be ruled out immediately as
their solution or their response, respectively, was considered inadequate given
minimum criteria. While the primary factor for choosing the vendors was the
relative rank among the ones qualified in the RFI, the second factor was the
vendors’ corporate profile. The project team desired a final selection including
vendors of all of the three types that had emerged from the RFI responses.
Domestic Kenyan vendors with a deep knowledge of Kenyan SACCO’s and
a strong presence in Kenya in terms of SACCOs using the application and
a physical presence. The purpose of inviting this group is to ensure that
the screening provides solutions that are highly tailored to the SACCO
model and suitable for SACCOs who prioritise proximity to the vendor
and need a vendor who is familiar with the business processes.
Foreign vendors that have developed microfinance and credit union
applications and can draw on a very significant international experience
from their commercial banking applications. This group has been invited
to provide a different perspective and possibly also a different level of
maturity, especially with regards to provision of ASP solutions. Their
solutions might require more customisation than the domestic but we
2
do not expect it to be prohibitive or that the costs will offset the other
benefit they could contribute with.
Vendors who are expected to provide more cost efficient solutions for the
SACCOs who do not have the budget for the high-end solutions. As the
first two types of purposely are the vendors who performed the best we
expect these to price above average and this might not suit all SACCOs.
The six selected vendors were notified of the results and invited to participate
in the final round of screening. The following was requested with regard to
the demonstrations:
The demonstration was to be hosted in their premises. This choice of
location would help the project team to gain additional insight into the
vendor’s operations and the support structure in place.
A current version of the system including sample data needed to be made
available. Sample data would facilitate live demonstration and testing of
key transactions the project team wanted to evaluate, such as receiving
deposit as cash/cheque, disbursing cash, processing a loan application,
answering a customer query about last month’s transactions, and setting
up a new user and assigning access rights.
Vendors were asked to demonstrate the main components of their
system and sample key SACCO business processes. Leaving the agenda
relatively open helped the project team to assess the familiarity of the
vendor with core SACCO processes.
The vendors were to provide at least two references for SACCOs which
are running on the proposed solution and which could be visited
subsequently. The project team assumed that this helped to make
vendors answer more truthfully as they would expect an on-site
assessment to take place after the demonstration.
The vendors were asked to provide details for one example of a multibranch
installation they had completed, including information on
the SACCO, the technology set-up, connectivity, data migration, and
challenges they had faced. This would allow the project team to assess
the vendor’s proficiency with regard to multi-branch implementations.
Vendors were requested to provide a cost estimate for two standard
SACCOs, i.e. an estimated total cost broken down into license,
implementation, training, and annual maintenance fees. Such an
estimate would enable the project team to be able to roughly compare
the price levels of the different solutions. The following information was
provided on the two standard SACCOs:
• Tea farmers-based SACCO, Kenya Tea Development Agency as sole
employer, 3 branches, 20 system users, 15000 members
• Urban SACCO with diverse membership, employees from governmental
and private organisations as well as teachers and traders, 8 branches,
100 system users, 60000 members.