The ERP Evaluation Committee: Who Really Needs to Be Involved (And Who Doesn’t)

The conference room is packed. Your CFO is checking email. Your warehouse manager looks confused. Two IT consultants are debating technical specifications nobody understands. And you’re three hours into what was supposed to be a two-hour ERP vendor presentation, with no clear path forward.

This scene plays out at distribution companies every week. When the stakes are high—and a $500,000+ ERP investment certainly qualifies—the instinct is to include everyone who might have an opinion. But the most successful ERP implementations don’t start with the largest committees. They start with the right committees.

The composition of your ERP evaluation team will fundamentally shape not just which system you select, but whether your implementation succeeds. Too few stakeholders, and you’ll miss critical requirements that surface painfully during go-live. Too many, and decision paralysis sets in while your legacy system continues costing you customers.

This article examines how mid-market distribution companies should structure their ERP evaluation committees, which roles are essential versus optional, and how to balance comprehensive input with decisive action. Whether you’re replacing an aging on-premise system or outgrowing QuickBooks, understanding who needs to be in the room—and who doesn’t—can mean the difference between a transformative implementation and a project that limps along for years.

Why Committee Composition Matters More Than You Think

The structure of your evaluation committee creates ripple effects throughout your entire ERP journey. A poorly composed committee doesn’t just slow down vendor selection—it fundamentally compromises the decisions being made.

The Hidden Costs of Committee Mistakes

When distribution companies get evaluation committee composition wrong, the consequences extend far beyond delayed timelines. An electrical supply distributor in the Midwest learned this lesson when their 15-person evaluation committee took nine months to select an ERP system. By the time they made a decision, two of their key stakeholders had left the company, their primary champion had shifted to a new role, and market conditions had changed enough that some of their original requirements were no longer relevant.

The financial impact of committee composition errors manifests in several ways. Decision paralysis costs real money—every month you delay ERP selection is another month your operations run on inefficient systems. One industrial distributor calculated they were losing approximately $47,000 monthly in operational inefficiencies while their oversized committee debated vendor options. That’s over half a million dollars in a year of indecision.

Incomplete stakeholder representation creates different but equally expensive problems. When critical voices are missing from the evaluation process, essential requirements get overlooked until implementation begins. A food distributor discovered during their ERP implementation that their warehouse operations required lot tracking capabilities that weren’t included in their selected system. The oversight occurred because warehouse management wasn’t represented on their evaluation committee. The resulting customization and workaround costs exceeded $180,000—expenses that could have been avoided with proper committee composition.

The Stakeholder Spectrum Problem

Distribution ERP systems touch virtually every department in your organization, which creates a fundamental challenge: theoretically, everyone has a stake in the decision. But involving everyone leads to unwieldy committees where consensus becomes impossible and evaluation criteria multiply beyond manageability.

Mid-market distributors face a particularly acute version of this challenge. Unlike enterprise organizations that might have dedicated project management offices and change management teams, mid-market companies typically operate with leaner structures. The same people evaluating ERP systems are simultaneously running daily operations. This resource constraint means committee composition must be even more carefully considered—you simply can’t afford to pull 12 people away from their core responsibilities for months of evaluation activities.

The stakeholder spectrum extends beyond internal team members to include external advisors, implementation partners, and even customers or suppliers whose integration requirements might influence system selection. Determining which external voices should participate in evaluation versus simply providing input requires careful judgment.

The Core Evaluation Team: Who Must Be Involved

Every successful ERP evaluation committee in distribution includes certain core roles. These aren’t optional—they represent perspectives and expertise that are absolutely essential for making an informed decision and ensuring successful implementation.

Executive Sponsor: The Decision-Maker and Champion

Your executive sponsor serves as the ultimate decision-maker and organizational champion for the ERP initiative. In mid-market distribution companies, this role typically belongs to the CEO, President, or Owner. The executive sponsor must have genuine authority to make final decisions, allocate resources, and drive organizational change.

The executive sponsor’s involvement signals to the entire organization that this initiative matters. When the CEO attends vendor demonstrations and asks probing questions, department managers understand that ERP selection isn’t just another IT project—it’s a strategic business transformation. This top-level commitment becomes essential when implementation challenges arise and difficult decisions must be made.

However, the executive sponsor shouldn’t be the most active committee member conducting day-to-day evaluation activities. Their role is strategic oversight and final authority, not detailed requirements gathering. An effective executive sponsor participates in key vendor demonstrations, provides strategic direction on business priorities, makes final selection decisions, and resolves deadlocks when the committee can’t reach consensus.

One building materials distributor effectively leveraged their CEO as executive sponsor by having him participate in the first and last vendor demonstrations for each finalist, but delegating detailed product evaluations to other committee members. This approach kept him informed without consuming excessive time, while ensuring his strategic perspective shaped the evaluation criteria.

Chief Financial Officer or Financial Controller

Your CFO or financial controller brings essential perspective on both the investment decision and the financial management capabilities your ERP system must support. Their involvement is non-negotiable because ERP selection fundamentally represents a major capital allocation decision that will impact your financial operations for a decade or more.

The financial perspective ensures that evaluation criteria balance functionality against total cost of ownership. While operations teams might advocate for comprehensive feature sets regardless of cost, financial leadership provides the business case discipline needed to make sustainable decisions. An HVAC distributor’s CFO saved the company from a costly mistake when she challenged assumptions about warehouse automation integration that would have added $250,000 to their implementation budget for capabilities they wouldn’t use for at least five years.

Beyond budget oversight, your financial leader evaluates how well each ERP system supports your specific financial management requirements. Distribution companies have unique financial considerations including rebate management, vendor payment terms, consignment inventory accounting, and multi-location consolidation. Your CFO understands which of these capabilities are essential versus nice-to-have, and can assess whether vendor promises about financial functionality match your actual requirements.

The financial representative also evaluates business intelligence and reporting capabilities. Distribution executives make decisions based on margin analysis, sales trends, inventory turns, and customer profitability. Your ERP system must deliver this visibility, and your financial leader is best positioned to assess whether vendor demonstrations of these capabilities meet your actual analytical requirements.

Operations Manager or VP of Operations

Your operations leader represents the functional heart of your distribution business—the people, processes, and systems that actually move product from suppliers to customers. This role is absolutely essential because ERP systems fundamentally exist to improve operational efficiency and execution.

The operations perspective ensures evaluation criteria prioritize real-world workflow efficiency over theoretical capabilities. Operations managers understand the difference between features that sound impressive in vendor demonstrations and functionality that actually improves how work gets done. A chemical distributor’s operations VP identified a critical weakness in a leading ERP candidate when he recognized that the vendor’s “integrated warehouse management” required warehouse staff to complete seven screen transitions to process a single pick ticket—compared to three screens in their current legacy system.

Operations leadership also brings institutional knowledge about process exceptions and edge cases that must be accommodated. While your standard order-to-cash process might seem straightforward, your operations manager knows about the customer who requires special packaging, the product line with complex serial number tracking, and the seasonal surge that requires temporary warehouse space. These operational realities must be reflected in evaluation criteria.

The operations representative typically becomes the most active committee member during vendor demonstrations, asking detailed questions about workflow, testing process scenarios, and evaluating how well each system supports your actual operational complexity. Their deep understanding of current processes and pain points makes them invaluable in assessing whether vendor solutions genuinely address your operational challenges.

IT Manager or Director

Your IT leadership brings technical expertise essential for evaluating system architecture, integration requirements, security considerations, and long-term supportability. While your ERP system is fundamentally a business solution rather than a technology project, the technical decisions embedded in system selection have profound long-term consequences.

The IT perspective ensures evaluation criteria include technical requirements that business stakeholders might overlook. One electronics distributor’s IT manager prevented a costly mistake by identifying that a prospective ERP vendor’s integration architecture required custom middleware for every third-party connection. This technical limitation would have created ongoing integration costs the business stakeholders hadn’t considered.

Your IT representative evaluates whether vendor technology aligns with your technical strategy and capabilities. For mid-market distributors, this consideration is particularly important because you likely have limited IT resources. A system that requires specialized database administration or custom coding for routine modifications might be technically impressive but practically unsupportable given your staff capabilities.

Security, data privacy, and business continuity requirements fall primarily within IT’s domain. Your IT leader assesses vendor security practices, disaster recovery capabilities, and data protection measures. As distribution companies increasingly face cybersecurity threats and regulatory requirements around customer data, these technical governance considerations become essential evaluation criteria.

The IT representative also manages the technical aspects of vendor evaluation, including coordinating data for demonstrations, facilitating integration discussions, and assessing technical documentation. Their involvement ensures technical feasibility receives appropriate weight alongside business functionality.

Key Department Manager (Sales, Purchasing, or Warehouse)

Beyond general operations leadership, your committee needs detailed representation from the specific operational area most impacted by ERP change. For many distributors, this means your sales manager, purchasing manager, or warehouse manager—whichever function faces the most significant process transformation.

This departmental representation brings ground-level understanding of how work actually happens and where current systems create operational friction. A sales manager knows whether your outside sales team needs mobile access to inventory availability and customer order history. A purchasing manager understands whether your vendor management processes require EDI integration or can function with manual purchase order entry. A warehouse manager recognizes whether your pick-pack-ship workflow requires RF scanning or operates effectively with paper-based processes.

The departmental representative also serves as a conduit to their broader team, gathering requirements from front-line staff and communicating evaluation progress back to the people who will ultimately use the new system daily. This communication role becomes essential for building user acceptance and ensuring that evaluation criteria reflect actual operational needs rather than management assumptions about operational needs.

One industrial supply distributor included their warehouse manager on the evaluation committee after an earlier technology initiative failed due to insufficient warehouse input. During vendor demonstrations, the warehouse manager identified that one leading ERP candidate used warehouse terminology inconsistent with industry standard practices—bin locations were called “slots,” receiving was called “intake,” and picking was called “extraction.” While these might seem like minor semantic differences, they signaled deeper disconnects between how the vendor conceptualized warehouse operations and how actual distribution warehouses functioned. This insight, which business leaders might have missed, ultimately influenced the vendor selection decision.

The Extended Committee: Important Contributors

Beyond the core evaluation team, certain roles provide valuable input and should participate in specific evaluation activities, even if they’re not full committee members involved in every meeting and decision.

Customer Service Manager

Your customer service manager brings critical perspective on how ERP capabilities impact customer experience and service quality. While they might not need to participate in every evaluation meeting, their input is essential when assessing order management, customer communication, and service capabilities.

Customer service representatives are often the first to encounter limitations in your current systems. They understand where customers experience frustration—whether that’s delayed shipment notifications, difficulty tracking orders, or inability to get accurate delivery commitments. Your customer service manager can articulate how ERP candidates address or fail to address these customer pain points.

The customer service perspective is particularly important when evaluating omnichannel capabilities. As distribution companies increasingly support customers across phone, email, web portals, and mobile channels, your ERP system must provide consistent information and functionality across touchpoints. Your customer service manager understands which capabilities are genuinely valuable versus superficial features that sound good but don’t improve customer experience.

Invite your customer service manager to participate in demonstrations focused on order management and customer-facing capabilities. Their participation should be targeted rather than continuous—they don’t need to sit through financial management demonstrations, but they absolutely should evaluate how each system supports order tracking, return processing, and customer inquiry management.

E-commerce or Digital Manager (if applicable)

For distributors with significant online sales, your e-commerce manager provides essential input on integration requirements, customer experience considerations, and digital capabilities. The relationship between your ERP system and e-commerce platform fundamentally shapes your ability to deliver seamless online ordering experiences.

Your e-commerce manager understands the specific data synchronization requirements that enable effective online operations. Real-time inventory visibility, automated pricing updates, order status synchronization, and customer-specific pricing all require robust integration between ERP and e-commerce systems. Your e-commerce leader can assess whether vendor integration capabilities genuinely support these requirements or merely offer basic connectivity that will require extensive customization.

The growing importance of digital channels in distribution means e-commerce considerations increasingly influence ERP selection. A building materials distributor discovered during their evaluation that one ERP candidate’s e-commerce integration required 15-minute inventory updates rather than real-time synchronization. For their business model, where contractors often ordered materials while standing in customer locations, this latency was unacceptable. The e-commerce manager’s participation in evaluation prevented what would have been a critical limitation.

However, e-commerce representation doesn’t need to be continuous throughout evaluation. Include your digital leader in discussions of integration capabilities, customer portal functionality, and omnichannel requirements, but they can likely skip financial management and warehouse operations demonstrations.

Industry-Specific Functional Expert

Depending on your distribution vertical, you might need input from functional experts who understand specialized industry requirements. Food and beverage distributors need expertise in lot tracking and cold chain management. Chemical distributors require knowledge of hazmat handling and SDS management. Medical supply distributors must understand regulatory compliance and traceability requirements.

These industry specialists might be internal subject matter experts or external consultants who understand your vertical’s unique requirements. Their input ensures your evaluation criteria appropriately prioritize capabilities that are essential for your specific industry, even if they seem niche compared to general distribution functionality.

A specialty pharmaceutical distributor included their regulatory compliance manager in ERP evaluation after learning that several ERP candidates claiming “healthcare distribution functionality” couldn’t actually support the FDA’s Drug Supply Chain Security Act traceability requirements. The compliance manager’s specialized knowledge prevented selection of a system that appeared functionally adequate but couldn’t support mandatory regulatory requirements.

Industry-specific functional experts typically participate in targeted evaluation activities rather than joining the full committee. Bring them into demonstrations of specialized functionality, requirements gathering sessions focused on their domain, and technical discussions of industry-specific integrations.

Who Doesn’t Need Committee Membership

Equally important as determining who should participate in ERP evaluation is recognizing who shouldn’t be on the committee. Including unnecessary stakeholders dilutes decision-making effectiveness and creates organizational politics that can derail the entire initiative.

Most End Users

The instinct to include broad end-user representation on evaluation committees is understandable but usually counterproductive. Your sales representatives, warehouse staff, customer service agents, and accounting clerks certainly have valuable perspectives on current system limitations and desired capabilities. However, including multiple end users on the evaluation committee creates unwieldy group dynamics and often elevates individual preferences over organizational requirements.

End users tend to focus on their specific daily workflows rather than broader business objectives. A warehouse picker might prioritize minimal screen clicks for picking tasks while overlooking how their preferred workflow impacts inventory accuracy or order fulfillment metrics. An accounts payable clerk might advocate for maintaining familiar data entry patterns even when alternative approaches would improve overall financial processing efficiency.

Rather than including end users as committee members, gather their requirements through structured input sessions, process observation, and feedback from their managers who do serve on the committee. One HVAC distributor effectively collected end-user input by having each committee member conduct focused requirements sessions with their teams, then synthesizing that feedback into evaluation criteria. This approach captured genuine operational requirements without requiring 15 staff members to participate in every vendor demonstration.

There is one important exception to this guidance: if you have a particularly influential or experienced end user whose perspectives carry weight across the organization, including them can be valuable. The 25-year warehouse supervisor who knows every operational nuance or the senior account manager who deeply understands customer needs might warrant committee participation even though they’re technically end users rather than management.

External IT Consultants (Usually)

Many distributors engage IT consultants to provide technical expertise during ERP evaluation, particularly if internal IT capabilities are limited. While consultant perspectives can be valuable, making them full committee members often creates more problems than it solves.

External consultants lack the institutional knowledge and organizational context that internal stakeholders bring. They don’t understand your specific customer relationships, operational quirks, and strategic priorities. When consultants vote on vendor selection or weigh in on requirement prioritization, they’re making decisions that will impact your business long after their engagement ends.

Consultants also sometimes have vendor preferences shaped by their implementation experience, training certifications, or partnership relationships. While professional consultants strive for objectivity, these subtle biases can influence recommendations in ways that don’t align with your specific business needs. An electrical distributor discovered their IT consultant was steering them toward an ERP vendor with whom the consultant had an active partnership, creating conflict-of-interest concerns.

The most effective approach is using consultants as advisors who provide input and expertise without becoming decision-makers. Consultants can assess technical architecture, facilitate requirements gathering, coordinate vendor demonstrations, and provide implementation planning guidance—all without requiring committee membership. One building materials distributor engaged a consultant specifically for technical evaluation and implementation planning, but explicitly excluded the consultant from selection decision meetings to ensure business leaders retained control of the final decision.

Board Members or External Investors (With Rare Exceptions)

If your distribution company has a board of directors or external investors, they obviously have significant financial interest in major capital decisions like ERP implementation. However, that financial interest doesn’t necessarily translate into valuable evaluation input, and including board members or investors on operational committees often creates problematic dynamics.

Board members typically lack the operational detail necessary to assess ERP functionality meaningfully. They understand financial performance and strategic objectives but rarely have ground-level knowledge of order management workflows, warehouse operations, or purchasing processes. Their participation in detailed vendor demonstrations adds limited value while consuming time from business leaders who should be focused on substantive evaluation activities.

Board involvement can also create uncomfortable power dynamics that suppress honest discussion. When the board chairman sits in vendor demonstrations, are committee members comfortable voicing concerns about vendor capabilities? Are they willing to challenge the chairman’s vendor preferences? The hierarchical dynamics inherent in board relationships can inadvertently stifle the candid evaluation discussions essential for informed decisions.

The appropriate role for board members and investors is financial governance and strategic oversight, not operational evaluation. Keep them informed of evaluation progress through executive summaries and milestone updates. Seek their approval for budget allocation and final vendor selection. But don’t include them in the evaluation committee conducting detailed requirements gathering and vendor assessments.

There is one exception: if a board member or investor has relevant operational expertise—perhaps they previously ran a distribution company or implemented ERP systems in comparable organizations—their experience might justify advisory participation. Even then, position them as subject matter experts providing input rather than decision-makers on the committee.

Every Department Manager

As organizations grow, the number of managers and department leaders expands. An industrial distributor might have separate managers for inside sales, outside sales, major accounts, purchasing, warehouse receiving, warehouse shipping, inventory control, accounts payable, accounts receivable, credit, and customer service. Including all these department leaders on the evaluation committee creates an unworkable group size and organizational politics that prevent effective decisions.

Many department managers supervise functions that will be impacted by ERP change but don’t require separate representation on the evaluation committee. If your operations VP represents operational perspectives and conducts thorough requirements gathering across their organization, you don’t necessarily need individual managers for warehouse, inventory, and transportation all participating as full committee members.

The test for whether a department manager warrants committee membership is whether their functional area has unique requirements that wouldn’t be adequately represented by other committee members. Your credit manager might have specialized requirements around credit hold workflows and customer financial risk assessment that your CFO wouldn’t necessarily prioritize. In that case, credit management representation makes sense. But your accounts payable manager probably doesn’t need separate committee membership if your CFO adequately represents financial processing requirements.

One food distributor effectively managed this challenge by creating a two-tier structure: a core evaluation committee of six members who participated in all activities, and an extended stakeholder group of 12 department managers who provided input during specific requirements gathering sessions and reviewed evaluation progress at key milestones. This structure captured broad organizational input without requiring 18 people to attend every vendor demonstration.

The Optimal Committee Size: Finding the Right Balance

Research on group decision-making consistently shows that optimal committee size falls between five and nine members. Smaller groups make decisions faster and more easily reach consensus, but risk missing important perspectives. Larger groups incorporate more viewpoints but struggle with coordination, scheduling, and decision paralysis.

The Five-to-Seven Sweet Spot for Mid-Market Distributors

For mid-market distribution companies, the optimal evaluation committee typically includes five to seven core members. This size is large enough to represent essential business functions while small enough to maintain decision-making agility. A typical effective committee structure might include:

1. Executive Sponsor (CEO or President)
2. Chief Financial Officer
3. VP of Operations or Operations Manager
4. IT Manager or Director
5. Sales Manager or Customer Service Manager
6. Warehouse Manager or Purchasing Manager
7. Project Manager or Business Analyst (if available)

This composition provides coverage of strategic leadership, financial management, core operations, technology, and key functional areas without creating an unwieldy group. An electrical supply distributor used this exact structure for their ERP evaluation and completed vendor selection in 12 weeks—significantly faster than industry averages—while still conducting thorough evaluation of five ERP candidates.

The five-to-seven range works particularly well for mid-market companies because it respects resource constraints. These six or seven people can typically arrange meetings within a few days, maintain consistent attendance throughout the evaluation process, and develop shared understanding of requirements and vendor capabilities. When your committee doubles to 12 or 14 members, coordination becomes exponentially more difficult and evaluation timelines extend accordingly.

How to Handle Larger Organizations

Larger distribution companies with multiple locations, divisions, or business units face additional complexity. When your organization spans multiple geographies or serves distinct customer segments with different operational models, the need for broader representation conflicts with the benefits of smaller committee size.

The most effective approach is creating a tiered evaluation structure. The core decision-making committee remains focused at five to seven members, but a broader stakeholder advisory group provides input at key milestones. One industrial distributor with five distribution centers structured their evaluation with a six-person core committee that made decisions, supported by a 15-person advisory group that participated in requirements gathering and reviewed vendor finalists. The advisory group provided essential multi-location input without requiring 21 people to coordinate schedules for every evaluation activity.

This tiered approach recognizes that different stakeholders need different levels of involvement. Your core committee requires deep engagement throughout the evaluation process—attending multiple vendor demonstrations, participating in requirement prioritization sessions, and conducting detailed capability assessments. Advisory group members can provide valuable input through more targeted participation—attending one or two key vendor demonstrations, providing feedback on requirements, and reviewing the evaluation criteria.

Multi-location representation is often handled through this tiered structure. Rather than adding the operations manager from each of your five locations to the core committee, include one operations leader on the core committee and engage the other locations through advisory group participation. This approach captures location-specific requirements without creating unmanageable committee size.

When Smaller Might Be Better

For smaller distributors—perhaps those under $20 million in revenue with lean management teams—even a five-person committee might be excessive. If your organization includes a CEO who deeply understands operations, a controller who manages all financial functions, and an office manager who handles everything from customer service to inventory to purchasing, your evaluation committee might function effectively with just three or four core members.

The key consideration is ensuring adequate representation of essential perspectives rather than hitting a specific numeric target. A regional HVAC distributor with $15 million in annual revenue effectively evaluated and selected their ERP system with a four-person committee: the owner/CEO, the controller, the operations manager, and an external IT consultant who provided technical expertise. This lean structure worked because each committee member brought broad functional knowledge rather than narrow departmental perspectives.

Smaller committees offer significant advantages for agile decision-making. Scheduling challenges largely disappear when you’re coordinating three or four calendars instead of seven or eight. Consensus emerges more naturally. Email chains and decision documentation remain manageable. One building materials distributor with a four-person evaluation committee completed their entire vendor selection process in six weeks—from requirements gathering through final decision—something that would be nearly impossible with larger committee structures.

Structuring Committee Roles and Responsibilities

Beyond determining who participates on your evaluation committee, you need clear definition of roles and responsibilities. Ambiguity about who makes what decisions and who owns which evaluation activities creates confusion that delays progress and frustrates participants.

The Committee Chair: Navigator and Facilitator

Every effective evaluation committee needs a designated chair who coordinates activities, facilitates meetings, and ensures forward progress. The committee chair isn’t necessarily the highest-ranking member—sometimes the executive sponsor delegates this operational leadership role to someone with more available time and project management capability.

The committee chair’s responsibilities include scheduling meetings and vendor demonstrations, coordinating stakeholder communication, facilitating discussion and decision-making, maintaining evaluation documentation, and managing evaluation timelines and milestones. This role requires someone with strong organizational skills, credibility across the organization, and sufficient time to dedicate to evaluation leadership.

For many mid-market distributors, the operations leader or CFO serves effectively as committee chair because they combine functional expertise with organizational perspective. An industrial supply distributor’s CFO chaired their evaluation committee and credited clear role definition with their successful six-month timeline from requirements gathering through vendor selection. The CFO coordinated all evaluation activities while the CEO served as executive sponsor making final decisions—a division of labor that kept the project moving efficiently.

Some organizations designate a project manager or business analyst as committee chair, particularly if they have someone with previous ERP experience or strong project management capabilities. This approach frees functional leaders to focus on requirements and evaluation rather than coordination logistics. However, the project manager approach requires someone with sufficient organizational credibility to effectively lead senior stakeholders.

Subject Matter Expert Responsibilities

Each committee member serves as a subject matter expert for their functional area, with specific responsibilities beyond general committee participation. These SME responsibilities include gathering requirements from their teams, evaluating vendor capabilities in their domain, testing vendor responses to process scenarios, and advocating for functional requirements while balancing broader organizational priorities.

Making these SME responsibilities explicit prevents gaps where important evaluation activities don’t get completed because everyone assumed someone else was handling them. One food distributor created a responsibility matrix that specified which committee member owned evaluation of which functional areas—operations for warehouse and logistics, finance for accounting and reporting, sales for order management and customer portal, IT for integration and technical architecture. This clear accountability ensured comprehensive evaluation coverage.

Subject matter experts should conduct detailed preparation before vendor demonstrations, developing specific scenarios and questions for their functional area. Rather than watching generic vendor presentations, SMEs actively probe vendor capabilities with real-world examples from your operations. A building materials distributor’s operations manager prepared six specific workflow scenarios before each vendor demonstration, then worked through those scenarios with vendor teams to assess how well each system supported their actual processes.

Voting Structure and Decision Rights

Perhaps the most important aspect of committee structure is clearly defining how decisions get made. Will vendor selection require unanimous consensus? Majority vote? Or does the executive sponsor retain final authority to overrule committee recommendations if necessary? Ambiguity about decision-making authority creates conflict and delays when the committee reaches critical decision points.

Most successful evaluation committees use a hybrid approach where the committee makes recommendations through consensus discussion or voting, but the executive sponsor retains final decision authority. This structure balances collaborative evaluation with clear accountability. The committee conducts thorough analysis and builds consensus around vendor selection, but if unexpected factors emerge or the committee deadlocks, the executive sponsor can make the call.

An HVAC distributor clearly defined their decision structure at the evaluation kickoff: the committee would collectively score vendors against weighted criteria, the top-scoring vendor would be recommended for selection, but the CEO would make the final decision after reviewing the committee’s analysis. This structure worked smoothly until the evaluation revealed the top-scoring vendor had 18-month implementation timelines that conflicted with the company’s aggressive growth plans. The CEO used his decision authority to select the second-ranked vendor with much faster implementation capability—a judgment call that the committee supported once they understood the strategic reasoning.

Some organizations use weighted voting where different committee members’ votes carry different weight based on their role or the decision being made. For example, the CFO’s vote might carry more weight on decisions about financial management capabilities, while the operations manager’s vote carries more weight on warehouse management functionality. While this approach has theoretical appeal, it often creates political complications. Most committees find that straightforward discussion leading to consensus or simple voting works more effectively.

Managing Committee Dynamics and Politics

Even with carefully considered composition and clear role definition, evaluation committees face interpersonal dynamics and organizational politics that can derail objective decision-making. Recognizing these challenges and proactively managing them improves evaluation quality and committee effectiveness.

The HiPPO Problem (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion)

One of the most common evaluation dynamics is the HiPPO problem, where the highest-paid person’s opinion—typically the CEO or executive sponsor—dominates discussion even when other committee members have more relevant expertise. When the CEO expresses enthusiasm for a particular vendor’s presentation, other committee members often hesitate to voice concerns or alternative perspectives.

The HiPPO dynamic becomes particularly problematic when executives form premature preferences based on vendor relationships, brand reputation, or surface-level impressions from sales presentations. An electrical distributor’s CEO attended an industry conference where a leading ERP vendor sponsored cocktail reception. The CEO returned enthusiastic about this vendor and unconsciously steered the evaluation committee toward that solution, even though detailed evaluation revealed significant functional gaps for their specific operations.

Effective committee chairs manage HiPPO dynamics by explicitly creating space for all perspectives before senior leaders weigh in. Structure discussions so functional experts present their assessments first, followed by leadership synthesis and decision-making. One industrial distributor used a structured evaluation approach where each committee member independently scored vendors against criteria before group discussion, preventing premature consensus around executive preferences.

Executive sponsors can also proactively mitigate HiPPO effects by explicitly encouraging candid feedback and demonstrating openness to perspectives that challenge their own views. When the CEO acknowledges uncertainty or actively solicits dissenting opinions, other committee members feel more comfortable sharing authentic assessments.

Functional Fiefdoms and Turf Protection

ERP evaluation often surfaces underlying tensions about functional priorities and resource allocation. Your operations manager wants comprehensive warehouse management capabilities. Your sales manager prioritizes robust CRM functionality. Your CFO focuses on financial reporting and cost control. Each functional leader naturally advocates for their domain, but unmanaged advocacy can devolve into unproductive territorial battles.

These functional tensions become particularly acute when discussing trade-offs. No ERP system perfectly addresses every functional requirement, especially within realistic budget constraints. When the evaluation committee must choose between superior warehouse management in one system versus stronger sales enablement in another, functional advocates dig into positions rather than collaboratively assessing organizational priorities.

One building materials distributor experienced destructive functional conflict when their sales manager and operations manager fundamentally disagreed about warehouse functionality trade-offs. The sales manager advocated for an ERP system with strong customer portal capabilities, even though its warehouse management was relatively basic. The operations manager pushed for a different system with comprehensive warehouse functionality but weaker e-commerce integration. The functional standoff consumed six weeks of meeting time before the CFO facilitated a structured trade-off analysis that helped the committee assess options objectively.

Effective evaluation committees establish evaluation criteria and weighting before assessing specific vendors, creating a framework for trade-off discussions that transcends individual functional preferences. When criteria are agreed upon in advance, functional advocates can make their cases within a structured decision framework rather than arguing from purely departmental perspectives.

Vendor Fatigue and Evaluation Exhaustion

ERP evaluation is exhausting. After the third vendor demonstration covering the same functionality, committee members’ attention wanes. After the fifth requirements gathering session, people stop raising thoughtful questions. This evaluation fatigue creates real risk of suboptimal decisions as committee members lose engagement and default to whoever presents most compellingly or whichever vendor they saw last.

Vendor fatigue manifests in several ways: declining meeting attendance as evaluation progresses, decreasing quality of questions during vendor demonstrations, premature consensus just to complete the process, and inadequate scrutiny of implementation timelines and risks. An HVAC distributor’s evaluation committee was so exhausted after evaluating five vendors over three months that they selected their final vendor after a single finalist demonstration, skipping the detailed reference calls and due diligence that should precede such significant decisions.

The best defense against evaluation fatigue is realistic project planning that accounts for the sustained attention required. Rather than attempting compressed timelines with vendor demonstrations scheduled back-to-back, build recovery time into your evaluation schedule. One food distributor structured their evaluation with vendor demonstrations spread over eight weeks rather than four, giving committee members time to process each vendor’s capabilities before moving to the next demonstration. While this extended their overall timeline, it maintained evaluation quality and committee engagement.

Committee chairs should also monitor for fatigue signals and adjust accordingly. If attendance declines or engagement drops, pause to reassess whether the committee needs recalibration, whether evaluation criteria need refinement, or whether the process needs restructuring to reinvigorate focus.

The Extended Stakeholder Communication Plan

While your core evaluation committee makes decisions and conducts detailed vendor assessments, many other organizational stakeholders need information about the evaluation process and opportunities to provide input. Managing this broader stakeholder communication prevents surprises during implementation and builds organization-wide support for eventual ERP change.

Keeping the Broader Management Team Informed

Beyond core committee members, your broader management team needs regular updates on evaluation progress. These managers will ultimately lead their teams through implementation and change management, so their buy-in and understanding are essential for successful deployment.

Effective stakeholder communication doesn’t mean inviting everyone to every vendor demonstration. Instead, establish a regular cadence of stakeholder updates—perhaps monthly or at key evaluation milestones. These updates should communicate evaluation progress, emerging vendor preferences, timeline expectations, and opportunities for stakeholder input. One industrial distributor sent biweekly stakeholder updates to 15 managers summarizing evaluation activities, vendor assessments, and upcoming milestones. This communication kept managers informed without requiring their active participation in evaluation activities.

Some organizations convene stakeholder input sessions at specific evaluation phases. Before defining evaluation criteria, gather requirements from the broader management team. Before final vendor selection, present leading candidates to stakeholders for feedback. After selection, brief stakeholders on the chosen vendor and implementation approach. These structured touchpoints gather valuable input while maintaining focused decision-making within the core committee.

Creating Channels for End-User Input

Your end users—the sales representatives, warehouse staff, customer service agents, and accounting clerks who will use the new ERP system daily—deserve opportunities to provide input even if they’re not committee members. This input serves two purposes: capturing operational requirements that management might overlook, and building user acceptance by demonstrating that their perspectives matter.

End-user input mechanisms should be structured rather than open-ended to remain manageable. One approach is conducting functional workshops where committee members lead discussions with end-user groups about current pain points and desired capabilities. A building materials distributor held six 90-minute workshops—separate sessions for warehouse staff, inside sales, outside sales, customer service, accounting, and purchasing—where committee members facilitated discussions about operational challenges and system requirements. These sessions produced valuable insights that shaped evaluation criteria while engaging users in the process.

Some organizations use surveys to gather broader end-user input about current system limitations and desired capabilities. While surveys lack the nuance of workshop discussions, they can efficiently collect feedback from larger staff populations, particularly if you have multiple locations. One food distributor with five warehouse locations used online surveys to collect warehouse staff input about current system pain points, receiving over 80 responses that informed their warehouse management evaluation criteria.

The key is creating genuine input opportunities rather than superficial engagement. If you ask for end-user perspectives, those perspectives must actually influence evaluation criteria and vendor assessment. When users provide feedback that gets ignored, cynicism develops that undermines eventual implementation.

The Role of External Advisors and Implementation Partners

Many distributors engage external expertise to support ERP evaluation and selection. Understanding how to effectively leverage this external support while maintaining internal control of decisions is essential for successful evaluation.

When ERP Consultants Add Value

Independent ERP consultants can provide valuable support during vendor evaluation, particularly for distributors with limited internal experience in ERP selection or implementation. Consultants bring exposure to multiple ERP systems, understanding of implementation best practices, and dedicated project management capacity that internal teams might lack.

Effective consultant engagement focuses on process facilitation and technical expertise rather than decision-making. Consultants can lead requirements gathering workshops, coordinate vendor demonstrations, facilitate scoring and evaluation, provide technical assessment of vendor capabilities, and develop implementation planning frameworks. These contributions help evaluation committees work more efficiently without usurping internal control of actual decisions.

One industrial distributor credited their ERP consultant with significantly improving their evaluation process by facilitating structured requirements gathering, developing comprehensive evaluation scorecards, and coordinating detailed vendor demonstrations. The consultant’s project management kept the evaluation on schedule and ensured systematic assessment of each vendor. However, the distributor maintained clear boundaries—the consultant advised but didn’t vote, recommended but didn’t decide.

The consultant relationship works less well when consultants become de facto decision-makers, particularly if they have vendor partnerships or preferences that create conflicts of interest. Before engaging consultants, clarify their vendor relationships, understand their methodology and approach, establish their role as advisors rather than decision-makers, and define deliverables and success criteria.

Implementation Partner Involvement in Vendor Selection

If you’ve already engaged an implementation partner or are considering specific implementation firms, their involvement in vendor evaluation creates both opportunities and risks. Implementation partners bring deep expertise about specific ERP platforms and can provide valuable insights about vendor capabilities, implementation complexity, and realistic timelines. However, partners obviously have vested interests in selecting vendors they’re certified to implement.

The timing question is whether to select your implementation partner before, during, or after vendor selection. Each approach has merits. Selecting implementation partners after vendor selection ensures vendor decisions are made independently of implementation considerations, but risks choosing partners unfamiliar with your selected ERP system. Involving partners during evaluation provides implementation perspective but introduces potential bias toward vendors those partners prefer.

Many mid-market distributors effectively manage this challenge by engaging implementation partners as advisory participants late in the evaluation process. After narrowing to two or three finalist vendors, bring in implementation partners for those specific platforms to provide implementation feasibility assessment, realistic timeline estimates, and cost projections. This approach gains implementation expertise when it’s most valuable while preventing premature commitment to specific partners or platforms.

One HVAC distributor invited implementation partners for their three finalist ERP vendors to participate in final demonstrations and provide implementation assessments. The partners’ perspectives on implementation complexity, timeline realism, and likely challenges significantly informed the final vendor selection while maintaining independence during the earlier evaluation phases.

Software Selection Firms and Industry Analysts

Some distributors engage software selection firms or industry analysts to provide independent vendor assessment and selection guidance. These firms typically conduct requirements analysis, recommend vendors to consider, coordinate vendor demonstrations, and facilitate final selection decisions.

Selection firms can add significant value for distributors with limited ERP experience, particularly those facing complex multi-location or multi-company requirements. Their vendor knowledge and evaluation methodologies can accelerate selection processes that might otherwise consume excessive time. However, selection firms also create dependencies that can undermine internal capability building, and some firms have vendor relationships that compromise their independence.

Before engaging software selection firms, understand their evaluation methodology, verify their distribution industry expertise, clarify their vendor relationships and potential conflicts, and establish clear boundaries about their advisory versus decision-making role. The evaluation committee should control decisions even when external advisors provide recommendations.

Special Considerations for Multi-Location Evaluations

Distributors operating multiple locations face additional committee composition challenges. Each location likely has operational nuances that should inform evaluation criteria, but including representatives from every location creates unwieldy committee size.

Balancing Centralization and Local Input

The fundamental tension in multi-location evaluation is balancing standardization with local autonomy. Your ERP system must work across all locations, but different facilities might have genuinely different operational models, customer bases, or process requirements. Your evaluation committee must understand these differences while making unified system selection decisions.

One effective approach is including one location representative on the core committee while engaging other locations through structured input sessions and advisory participation. An industrial distributor with four distribution centers included their largest location’s operations manager on the core evaluation committee, then conducted detailed requirements gathering at each of the other three locations. This structure captured location-specific needs while maintaining manageable committee size.

Another model uses regional or functional representation rather than location-by-location representation. If your locations serve distinct geographic markets, include regional managers who understand multiple facilities rather than individual location managers. If locations serve different customer segments or product lines, include representation for each major segment rather than each physical location.

The key is ensuring your evaluation committee understands variation across your location portfolio without requiring every location manager to participate in every evaluation activity. One food distributor created detailed location profiles documenting operational characteristics, customer requirements, and process differences for each of their six facilities. The evaluation committee used these profiles to assess how well vendor solutions accommodated their location diversity without needing all six location managers on the committee.

Handling Franchise or Independently Owned Locations

For distributor networks that include franchise locations or independently owned facilities, committee composition becomes even more complex. These locations need voice in evaluation that will impact their operations, but might not be appropriate full committee members given ownership structures and potentially competing interests.

Most distributor networks in this situation create tiered involvement structures. Corporate evaluation committees make platform decisions, but franchise or independent locations participate in requirements input and have representation in evaluation activities that affect their operations. One HVAC distributor network structured their evaluation with a corporate committee that selected the core ERP platform, but franchise locations had input into optional modules and implementation approaches for their facilities.

Clear communication about decision-making authority becomes especially important in franchise or independent ownership scenarios. Location owners need to understand which decisions they’ll control versus which decisions are being made centrally. Transparency about evaluation criteria, vendor assessment, and selection rationale helps build acceptance even when individual locations might have preferred different solutions.

Timeline Considerations and Committee Stamina

The duration of your ERP evaluation process significantly impacts committee composition and effectiveness. Longer evaluations require sustained committee engagement that becomes increasingly difficult to maintain, while compressed timelines risk inadequate evaluation and hasty decisions.

Realistic Evaluation Timelines

Most mid-market distribution companies complete ERP vendor evaluation and selection in three to six months. This timeline includes requirements gathering (4-6 weeks), initial vendor research and long-list development (2-3 weeks), vendor demonstrations and short-list evaluation (6-8 weeks), final vendor assessment and selection (3-4 weeks), and contract negotiation (2-4 weeks).

These timeframes assume reasonable committee availability and decision-making efficiency. In practice, many evaluation processes extend longer due to scheduling challenges, incomplete requirements, vendor delays, or decision paralysis. An electrical distributor planned a four-month evaluation timeline but ultimately took nine months due to committee scheduling conflicts and extended deliberations about vendor trade-offs.

When planning evaluation timelines, build realistic assumptions about committee availability. Your evaluation committee includes people with demanding operational responsibilities who can’t dedicate full-time attention to vendor selection. Assuming you can schedule comprehensive vendor demonstrations every week for two months likely overestimates committee capacity. More realistic planning might schedule major evaluation activities biweekly, with intervening weeks for committee members to process information and conduct follow-up analysis.

Preventing Decision Fatigue and Maintaining Momentum

Long evaluation processes inevitably face momentum challenges as initial enthusiasm wanes and competing priorities reclaim attention. The committee that energetically launches evaluation in January might be struggling with attendance and engagement by June if the process drags on without clear progress milestones.

Several strategies help maintain evaluation momentum. First, establish clear milestones and deadlines that create forward progress expectations. Rather than open-ended evaluation timelines, commit to specific decision dates—vendor long-list completed by March 15th, short-list vendors selected by April 30th, final vendor chosen by June 15th. These milestones create accountability and prevent indefinite deliberation.

Second, maintain evaluation variety to combat monotony. After several vendor demonstrations that start feeling repetitive, shift to different evaluation activities—site visits, reference calls, detailed functional deep-dives on specific capabilities. One industrial distributor maintained committee engagement by alternating between vendor presentations, hands-on system testing, customer reference calls, and implementation planning discussions. The variation kept committee members mentally engaged across a five-month evaluation process.

Third, periodically refresh committee focus on why ERP change matters. When evaluation fatigue sets in, remind the committee of the business problems driving the initiative—whether that’s operational inefficiencies costing six figures annually, customer service challenges threatening retention, or growth limitations from current system constraints. Reconnecting with these motivations can reinvigorate committee focus.

Post-Selection: Transitioning Committee to Implementation

Your evaluation committee’s work doesn’t end with vendor selection. Many of the same stakeholders who evaluated vendors should transition into implementation leadership roles, though the committee structure and responsibilities will shift significantly.

From Evaluation to Implementation Governance

The evaluation committee typically evolves into an implementation steering committee or governance board that provides oversight, makes key implementation decisions, and removes obstacles during the deployment project. However, the implementation governance structure usually expands beyond the evaluation committee to include additional stakeholders critical for deployment success.

Implementation governance often includes project manager or implementation lead, executive sponsor (continuing from evaluation), functional leaders for major project workstreams, change management and training leadership, and technical leadership for system configuration and integration. Some evaluation committee members continue in implementation governance roles, while others transition to implementation workstream leadership or step back to focus on operational responsibilities.

An HVAC distributor effectively managed this transition by maintaining their six-person evaluation committee as the implementation steering committee, then adding four additional members specifically for implementation—the project manager, a change management lead, a data migration specialist, and a training coordinator. This structure preserved evaluation continuity while incorporating implementation expertise.

The implementation governance committee’s responsibilities differ significantly from evaluation activities. Rather than assessing vendor capabilities, the implementation committee makes decisions about configuration choices, customization priorities, deployment sequences, and change management approaches. The focus shifts from selection to execution.

Preserving Institutional Knowledge

The knowledge your evaluation committee accumulated about vendor capabilities, implementation requirements, and organizational needs shouldn’t be lost when transitioning to implementation. This evaluation context helps implementation teams understand the rationale behind vendor selection and the priorities that should guide implementation decisions.

Comprehensive evaluation documentation serves as the primary mechanism for preserving this institutional knowledge. Your evaluation should produce documented requirements, vendor assessment scorecards, demonstration notes, reference call summaries, and selection rationale. These documents become reference materials during implementation when questions arise about why certain capabilities were prioritized or how specific processes should be configured.

One building materials distributor created a comprehensive evaluation summary document that captured their requirements, vendor assessments, selection rationale, and key decision points. When implementation challenges emerged six months later about warehouse management configuration, the implementation team referenced this evaluation documentation to understand the original requirements and priorities driving those decisions.

Some committee members who participated in evaluation might not continue into implementation but should remain available as subject matter resources. If your purchasing manager provided essential input during evaluation but can’t dedicate time to implementation project participation, ensure implementation teams can consult them when purchasing-related configuration questions arise.

Conclusion: Getting Committee Composition Right

ERP vendor selection represents one of the most consequential decisions mid-market distribution companies make. The system you select will shape your operational capabilities, customer experience, and competitive positioning for the next decade. Getting that decision right starts with assembling the right evaluation committee.

The most effective evaluation committees balance comprehensive perspective with decision-making agility. They include essential functional leaders and subject matter experts while avoiding the sprawling committee membership that creates decision paralysis. They create structured opportunities for broader organizational input without requiring everyone to participate in every evaluation activity. They leverage external expertise appropriately while maintaining internal control of critical decisions.

Your evaluation committee composition should reflect your organization’s specific characteristics—size, complexity, operational model, and available resources. A $50 million single-location distributor might function effectively with a four-person core committee. A $300 million multi-location operation might need a seven-person core committee supported by a 15-person advisory group. The principles of balanced perspective and manageable decision-making apply regardless of your specific structure.

Most importantly, committee composition represents a means to an end, not an end in itself. The goal isn’t achieving perfect representation or satisfying organizational politics—it’s making the best possible ERP selection decision for your business. Sometimes that requires disappointing stakeholders who want committee participation but aren’t essential for evaluation success. Sometimes it requires navigating difficult conversations about decision authority and functional priorities. These challenges are worthwhile investments in evaluation quality and implementation success.

The distribution companies that most successfully navigate ERP selection recognize that committee composition decisions ripple throughout their entire ERP journey. The committee that carefully evaluates vendors, thoughtfully weighs trade-offs, and decisively selects solutions positions the organization for implementation success. The committee that struggles with political dynamics, decision paralysis, or inadequate functional representation creates problems that persist through implementation and beyond.

For distribution companies ready to begin this journey, the path forward is clear. Start by defining your core evaluation committee with essential functional representation. Establish clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authority. Create structured mechanisms for broader organizational input without overwhelming your core committee. Engage external expertise appropriately to support rather than replace internal decision-making. And maintain realistic timelines that respect committee capacity while driving forward momentum.

When you’re ready to see how modern ERP solutions support distribution operations—and how evaluation committees assess these capabilities—schedule a demonstration to explore what purpose-built distribution technology can enable for your business.

The right ERP system, selected by the right evaluation committee, positions distribution companies for operational excellence and competitive advantage. That journey begins with thoughtfully assembling the team that will guide your organization through this transformative decision.