$997 — Self-serve
Decision Kit v2.0
- Best when the internal team can own the evaluation.
- Gives you the scoring model, TCO workbook, personas, and mobilization logic.
- Ideal before or between vendor conversations.
Standard evaluation criteria don't account for the structural differences between Bloomberg AIM and Charles River IMS. The result: firms pick the platform that presented better, not the one that fits their actual complexity profile. This kit changes the criteria.
You need a framework your board will accept — scoring that maps to your firm's actual workflow complexity, not the vendor's marketing categories.
You need to evaluate FIX session architecture, API surface, custodian connectivity, and IBOR integration depth — with a rubric that weights technical capability against implementation risk.
Compliance engine architecture is the most under-covered differentiator between AIM and CRD. This kit covers rule structures, IBOR treatment, and pre/post-trade flow in both platforms.
You need to justify a $2–$5M system selection with documented rationale. The weighted scoring worksheet and implementation risk synthesis produce board-ready output.
Use the kit when your team can run the evaluation internally and you need a defensible framework. Bring PBW into the sprint when the recommendation has to survive steering committee review, budget challenge, or contract timing pressure.
Philip Williams is a senior OMS implementation consultant with hands-on delivery experience across Bloomberg AIM and Charles River IMS — trade capture, compliance configuration, T+1 settlement, IBOR integration, custodian connectivity. UCLA Anderson MBA. The framework is informed by anonymized client delivery patterns and documented project outcomes.
The Decision Kit v2.0 is derived from the evaluation frameworks Philip uses with clients who engage at the $25K–$50K advisory level. The scoring rubric and risk synthesis are production tools, not templates built for a product.
PBW Professional Services L.L.C. is vendor-neutral — no vendor commissions, no referral fees. The framework has no incentive to point you toward either platform.
Instant access. Not satisfied? Email info@pbwps.com for a full refund — no questions, no hoops.
The v2.0 kit is now the canonical version. It folds the earlier scoring rubric and TCO model into a fully updated 24-page framework with buyer personas, implementation-risk synthesis by AUM band, evidence pack, executive steering committee materials, and a companion workbook with sensitivity analysis.
Yes — the risk synthesis, buyer personas, and mobilization plan are equally useful for implementation scoping after selection. The TCO model helps pressure-test contract terms. The steering committee pack is useful for internal communication regardless of where you are in the process.
The framework covers $500M–$10B AUM explicitly. Below that threshold, the free OMS Readiness Assessment is a better starting point. If you're evaluating AIM or CRD, the kit still applies — the personas and risk synthesis are dimension-agnostic.
If the platform decision has active executive scrutiny, use the OMS TCO & Vendor Selection Sprint. If the platform is already selected and the question shifts to implementation readiness, the OMS Readiness Diagnostic is the better follow-on.
Yes. Single-firm license. Share internally as needed. Not for redistribution.
Excel (.xlsx). Tested in Excel 2016+ and Google Sheets. Formulas are unlocked — extend the model for your firm's specific cost structure and weighting priorities.
The firms that get this right have a documented process. The ones that regret it relied on vendor demos.
Need PBW to facilitate the selection? Review the TCO & Vendor Selection Sprint →