I recently read Julien's posting on LeapComp regarding ICM vendor selection and implementation.  I agree with most of the conclusions he draws, but would like to offer a slightly revised view regarding "finalized requirements."

Like with any enterprise software implementation, nailing down the requirements will always be one of the most difficult aspects of an ICM implementation.  However, given the dynamic nature of incentive compensation plans, my experience has taught me that "finalizing the plans" prior to a vendor or tool selection isn't realistic for many organizations.  Rather, we at Merced believe that organizations have to work collaboratively with vendors during the selection process to understand how flexible the solution is and whether it's a good fit for the organizational structure, scalability requirements, and plan complexity.  Just as the organization's incentive plans change over time, so too do the vendor's products.  So it's important to pick a vendor with a product roadmap that aligns with the changes the organization anticipates in coming years.

We've found that the key to dealing with this moving target is for ICM vendors to be involved early in the definition of requirements and to be able to aid the customer in shaping their thoughts.  Often enough the client doesn't have a concrete list of needs and wants, but rather is engaged in compromise between HR, Finance and Sales.

In the end, everyone benefits if an RFP truly represents the system's ability to deliver benefits to the customer.  Unfortunately, RFPs are often composed of wish-list items from several different departments rather from dictated ICM strategy needs.  In the vendor selection process, companies would benefit from expert advice early on.