Hosting Selection

Read how Metrici used their own methods to select an effective provider for internet hosting services.

Background

Metrici had a requirement to move to a new provider of internet hosting services, to support growing demand for their Metrici Advisor service.

Requirements

Metrici's requirements were:

• Select a provider that could meet Metrici's stringent requirements for support, control and future growth.
• Ensure that process was defensible to Metrici's partners and customers.
• Carry out effective selection at minimum time and cost.

Metrici Compare

Metrici used the Metrici Compare method to structure the selection process.

The first stage of this was to define a broad set of criteria to be used to evaluate service providers. The criteria were split into five groups:

• Information. Basic information about the provider including the range of products available from them.
• Capability. The technology capability, such as the software environment, access, connectivity, capacity, scalability and resilience.
• Support. The providers competence at support, their support hours, and their responsiveness.
• Commercial and legal. Data centre protection, legislative zone, provider viability and strategic focus.
• Costs. Up-front costs, running costs, and fair pricing.

A series of rules were defined to identify issues with potential providers. These included: technology issues such as capacity, scalability and resilience; support weaknesses; inadequate data protection; and commercial viability.

Metrici Advisor was used to develop the criteria and rules, and automatically generate a questionnaire for provider evaluation.

After initial screening, suitable providers were interviewed by phone. This was a short process — a typical interview took about 20 minutes. The interview process very effectively gathered the basic information to evaluate the providers. The potential providers were happy with the process. One provider commented that it was the most thorough set of questions they had ever been asked.

All identified UK-based providers with appropriate technical solutions were evaluated, together with a few other providers to give a broader comparison. A score was calculated for each vendor, and a list of issues.

This exercise identified a short list of three providers with high scores and no significant issues.

This short list was investigated more thoroughly using more subjective criteria, such as commercial fit, confidence in support capability, and potential to support Metrici's plans in the future. From this process, one provider (Goscomb Technologies, www.goscomb.net) was selected.

In summary

The Metrici Compare method provided an effective structure for this infrastructure selection process. It allowed many providers to be considered quickly and effectively, focusing management attention on a small number of key issues and a small number of providers.

The Metrici Compare method was only part of the decision-making process. The selected provider did not have the highest score because it was a slightly more expensive option, but was eventually selected on more subjective commercial criteria. The combination of rapid, objective evaluation followed by careful, subjective consideration provides a very effective approach to decision making.

The process demonstrated that Metrici Compare is an effective framework for infrastructure selection. It is particularly good at evaluating providers quickly and ensuring that all key areas are covered, to free management attention to consider more significant commercial aspects.