Expert Strategies for Vendor Management in Software Implementation

We treated the vendor as part of the delivery team but kept ownership clear. We assigned one internal point of contact, set a weekly cadence call, and maintained a shared document that tracked only three items: decisions, blockers, and next steps. This prevented the usual confusion where multiple stakeholders send conflicting instructions.

The strategy that made the partnership productive was focusing every commitment on outcomes and timelines rather than general promises. If the vendor said “we can do that,” we clarified the exact deliverable, the target date, and what they needed from us. When issues came up, we stayed calm and direct: “Here is the impact, here is the decision needed, here is the next step.” Vendors work best with structure because it gives them clarity and protects them from scope creep and scattered feedback.

My most successful partnership came about when we stopped discussing “who is to blame” and started discussing “what is the least risky solution.” My product supplier and I agreed on a unified acceptance approach. We defined the criteria for what constitutes a finished product, which tests are mandatory, and what happens if the tests fail. This eliminated emotional arguments and shifted everything to the realm of agreed-upon criteria. Yes, the criteria were discussed and debated, but only once, essentially. The result of this working strategy, in the form of a pre-written “Definition of Done” document, allowed both teams to play by the same rules.

We managed vendor relationships most successfully by treating them as delivery partners, not just suppliers, and setting that expectation early. In one implementation, we established a shared operating rhythm with weekly checkpoints focused on risks, dependencies, and upcoming decisions rather than status reporting. That created transparency on both sides and prevented small issues from turning into late-stage surprises.

The single most effective strategy was agreeing upfront on how problems would be raised and resolved, not just on scope and timelines. By normalizing early escalation and joint problem-solving, we built trust and kept the project moving even when assumptions changed.

We managed vendor relationships by treating them as partners, not order-takers. From the start, we aligned on outcomes, timelines, and success metrics instead of just deliverables. That shared clarity reduced friction and prevented surprises later in the project.

One strategy that made the biggest difference was setting up regular, structured check-ins focused on risks and blockers, not status updates. Those conversations encouraged transparency and problem-solving on both sides. When vendors felt trusted and informed, collaboration improved, issues surfaced earlier, and the implementation stayed on track.

One approach that consistently worked for us was treating the vendor as an extension of the project team rather than an external supplier. We aligned early on success metrics, decision-making ownership, and escalation paths, so there were no grey areas once implementation began.

What made the biggest difference was establishing a regular, outcome-focused cadence — short check-ins centred on risks, dependencies, and next actions, not just status updates. That transparency built trust quickly and allowed both sides to solve problems collaboratively instead of defensively.

The strategy that fosters productive partnerships is establishing a shared Slack channel or Teams workspace from day one where both technical teams communicate directly without filtering through project managers or account executives.

I learned that the cost of vendor dependencies is more challenging to manage, in part because communication disconnects lead to delays and lost data. Frontend people spend time on it if they have to forward technical issues through several people. Eliminating this waste and accelerating problem-solving means technical teams deal directly with each other.

To do this we bring together client developers, engineers, product managers and stakeholders in one space to communicate. We also lay out response times and escalation flows to make sure questions about technical details get to the right folks. This transparency is the antithesis of what clients are used to, the “black box” experience.

This process is about more than the shadow reports: Our clients are able to see what we actually do, and they can observe how we take on problems. Feedback is that the client does not want to hear false news, but wants to know what project reality looks like.

But not all customers are comfortable with this approach. Some want their tech teams to do the client work to shield them from the technical intricacies of software. It requires both parties to be committed to leading the technical conversation and putting themselves out there.

This eases scope; you can avoid setting things up incorrectly due to miscommunication. In-person conversations can help to clear up any assumptions and misalignments that could prevent larger clashes downstream in the project. Addressing concerns early keeps everyone happy when the deliverable does meet expectations to begin with.

During my career, I’ve worked with two main types of vendor partnerships.

In one model, vendor resources were embedded into our team. They joined daily stand-ups, participated in design discussions, and were part of day-to-day delivery. In the other model, we assigned defined tasks with clear timelines and held structured checkpoint meetings to review progress.

Both models can work well. What made the difference in each case was setting clear expectations from the beginning. Around timelines, quality standards, SLAs, and ownership. When those were clearly defined and documented, collaboration became much smoother.

Another important factor was treating the vendor as a partner, not just a service provider. Encouraging open discussions about risks and blockers helped prevent surprises later. I’ve found that when expectations are clear and communication is consistent, vendor relationships become productive and outcome-focused rather than transactional.

With ERP and enterprise projects, vendor tension can lead to catastrophic outcomes, making the vendor relationship absolutely critical. In our experience, treating vendors with absolute fairness while having a deep understanding of their business model and constraints can create a win-win relationship, which will go very far, especially in situations when you might need favors from them, whether you need support during off-hours or need something outside of their contractual obligations.

The other strategies would be to help them out with references, testimonials, or awareness about their services. The more you do for them, the more they will be willing to go out of their way to create a productive partnership for both parties.

Being a vendor ourselves, I’ve learned that nothing matters more than open and timely communication on both sides. Clear expectations, early escalation of risks, and brutal honesty about constraints build trust faster than any contract.

One more thing is to treat the vendor as an extension of the internal team. When incentives and context are shared, partnerships become productive instead of transactional.

As a founder, I have come to realize that vendor relationships do not fail because of tools or contracts; rather, they fail because of incentives and visibility.

As a case study, one of the key strategies that worked for me during software implementation projects in Kualitatem involved treating vendors as delivery partners rather than just vendors or suppliers. This meant three key things:

First, we focused on outcome rather than scope. This involved agreeing on quality measures such as defect leakage, rework rates, and release readiness in addition to milestones. This ensured that all parties were aligned and had a common objective for communication.

Second, we created a single source of truth. This involved providing vendors with complete visibility into requirements, test coverage, defects, and risks in real-time. This ensured that there were no “surprises” later in the project, eliminating blame games and finger-pointing.

Finally, and perhaps most important, we created a recurring forum for vendors and us. This involved a short, recurring forum for vendors and us to discuss risks and decisions, not status. This helped create trust because vendors knew that risks could be escalated without penalty.