ListedTech
  • Data Portals
    • Portal for Industry
    • Portal for Institutions
    • Webinars
  • Product Categories & Reports
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • Documentation
    • Webinars
  • About Us
    • Our Story
    • Data Overview
    • Traditional IT Research vs. ListEdTech
    • In the Media
    • Contact Us

Search the website...

Go to Portal
Posted on May 22, 2024 | by Justin Ménard

Packaging New Requirement Types for LMS RFPs

ListEdTech Market Data

At the end of our blog post on deconstructing LMS RFPs to find the most popular evaluation criteria, we mentioned that we are working on defining the functional and non-functional criteria. Over the past month and a half, we have worked on grouping the different requirement types. Rapidly, we understood that it’s not a matter of two groups but six different requirement groups.

Update on Requirement Type Grouping

In our initial post, we put all requirements in the same graph, even though we knew there were functional and non-functional requirements. However, to give an accurate picture of disparate RFPs, we standardized them into six types of categories:

  • Functional: these state what tools your users will leverage to achieve their objectives
  • Non-Functional: these state how the proposed solution will work 
  • Contractual: detail terms and conditions necessary to formalize a partnership between the institution and a vendor
  • Management: detail expectations for the project with the vendor, such as guidelines for solution implementation, training, customer support
  • Submission: detail how vendors should submit their proposals, such as the maximum number of pages, document format, and delivery method
  • Business: detail the goals the institution plans to achieve by partnering with a specific vendor

With this new grouping, we have created the following graph to represent the importance of each requirement group. We are still working with the same dataset: sixty-nine institutions (13 from 2-year colleges, 20 from 4-year or above universities, 28 from school districts, and 8 from state-wide systems), all from North America. We have over 450 criteria spread across the 69 institutions, which represents an average of almost 7 criteria per evaluated RFP.

The Most Common Requirement Types

The contractional and submission requirements are the most popular because of (a) external compliance (women-owned business, for example), and (b) institutional requirements for how to submit RFPs. What’s interesting here is that functional requirements are the second-most popular, as it suggests that institutional leaders are demanding that vendors meet use cases and user needs.

Evaluation Weight of Requirement Types

Similarly to our first post on LMS RFPs, we looked at the evaluation weight for each requirement type. We define evaluation weight as the percentage associated with one specific requirement in the RFP evaluation. To carry out this analysis, we selected only the criteria for which we had an evaluation percentage from the initial 450+ criteria. We then calculated an average for each of the six requirement types. By doing so, we noticed that they almost evened out. Except for one group (the non-functional requirements, which averaged 14%), all requirements scored between 17% and 19%.

Evaluation Weight for All Six Requirement Types (from 69 LMS RFPs in North America)

Requirement TypesPercentage
Business Requirements19%
Contractual Requirements17%
Functional Requirements18%
Management Requirements17%
Non-Functional Requirements14%
Submission Requirements17%

The non-functional requirement has a minor impact on the overall scoring, which can be explained by the fact that the LMS product category has been used for over 20 years in North America and that institutions know what to expect from such a system: course creation and management, content creation, classroom attendance and management, reporting, assessment and grading, and communication with the participants. There are not many non-functional requirements except for the integration of video conferencing features since the pandemic.

In addition, when evaluating the proposals, institutions want to distinguish the best solutions providers for their university or school district. The business requirement is, therefore, critical to the success of a new LMS implementation.

The Precision of This New Grouping

The most significant advantage of grouping the requirements into six groups instead of two is two-fold: to be more precise with requirements within an institution and to be able to compare one institution’s RFP with another. The preparation before launching an RFP is paramount to its success. We discussed this topic in our first blog post, and it will be a central part of our RFP report. The report will be produced over the summer, but if you need it before the launch, do not hesitate to contact us. We always want to help institutions and solution providers to connect more efficiently.

Post navigation

Exploring the Benefits of Outcomes-Based Benchmarking
Digital Accessibility in Higher Education: Two Vendors to Watch
  • Subscribe to Our Newsletter
  • CAPTCHA image

    * All fields are required.

  • Listen to Our Podcast


  • Recent Posts

    • Who Are HigherEd’s Tech Leaders? October 15, 2025
    • Anthology’s Chapter 11 Filing: Breaking Up to Refocus October 1, 2025
    • Rethinking Market Saturation in EdTech September 24, 2025
    • Thesis: From Unit4 Spin‑Off to SIS Specialist September 17, 2025
    • How Institutions Discover What Tech Their Peers Are Using September 3, 2025

Stay in the know…

Blog & News
Higher Ed Market Data

Who Are HigherEd’s Tech Leaders?

This year, I’ve been revisiting some of the classic business books: Blue Ocean Shift, Free, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Zero to One, and of course, Crossing the Chasm. That last one really got me thinking about early adopters. In tech markets, they’re the people (or in HigherEd, the institutions) who are comfortable taking risks, trying something new, and shaping the market ... Who Are HigherEd’s Tech Leaders?  Read More
Market Data Market Movements

Anthology’s Chapter 11 Filing: Breaking Up to Refocus

September 2025 marked a major turning point for Anthology, the owner of Blackboard and several other higher education technology platforms. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. after efforts to sell itself or parts of its business outside of court failed. The filing is not a liquidation. Instead, it is a structured reorganization designed to ... Anthology’s Chapter 11 Filing: Breaking Up to Refocus  Read More
ListEdTech Market Data

Rethinking Market Saturation in EdTech

Market saturation is a concept we often discuss at ListEdTech because it comes up frequently with our clients. Investors want to know if a market still has room to grow, while startups want to understand whether they are entering a space with opportunities or one that is already crowded. Last year, we explored saturation by ... Rethinking Market Saturation in EdTech  Read More
Footer Logo - LisTedTECH
  • Contact Us
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use