Input wanted for an article.

Let's say that your company is considering the purchase of an expensive new application to help in the company's software development. The demo looks great, and the feature list makes it sound perfect for your needs. So your Management arranges for a proof of concept license to find out if the software is worth the hefty investment. The boss comes to you to ask you to be in charge of the PoC project.

I'm aiming to write an article to help developers, devops, and testers determine if a given vendor's application meets the company's needs. The only assumption I'm making is that the software is expensive; if it's cheap, the easy answer is, "Buy a copy for a small team and see what they think." And I'm thinking in terms of development software rather than enterprise tools (e.g. cloud-based backup) though I suspect many of the practices are similar.

Aside: Note that this project is beyond "Decide if we need such a thing." In this scenario, everyone agrees that purchasing a tool is a good idea, and they agree on the baseline requirements. The issue is whether this is the right software for the job.

So, how do you go about it? I'm sure that it's more than "Get a copy and poke at it randomly." How did (or would) you go about designing a PoC project? If you've been involved in such a project in the past (particularly if the purchase wasn't ideal), what advice could someone have given you to help you make a better choice? I want to create a useful guide that applies to any "enterprise-class" purchase.

For example: Do you recommend that the PoC period be based on time (N months) or workload (N transactions)? How do you decide who should be on the PoC team? What's involved in putting together a comprehensive list of requirements (e.g. integrates with OurFavoredDatabase, meets performance goals of X), creating a test suite that exercises what the software dev product does, and evaluating the results? ...and what am I not thinking of, that I should?

I'm sure something everyone has wondered at this point is simply what the plan is after the lockdown. Out of what's circulating in public policy circles, Paul Romer's plan is the probably the one with the most appealing results

https://paulromer.net/covid-sim-part1/

Basically, mass random testing--specifically, 7% of the population is tested every day, or 21 million, selected randomly.

Of course, 21 million random tests is an absurd number. But if it could be done, people could to some extent resume life, if the simulations hold to reality.

On the other hand, plans like

https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/national-coronavirus-response-a-road-map-to-reopening/

https://ethics.harvard.edu/covid-19-response

Have a few things in common. For one, they all involve incredibly advance and detailed contact tracing. They rely on the proliferation of mass surveillance similar to HK, where all US citizens would have to install apps, for instance, that track their location and ping them when they have been in contact with a COVID19 positive patient.

They also involve extreme limitations on travel, and one of them even has the forced drafting of immune citizens into the medical and food industries.

It's estimated about 80% of the economy could continue, and they will last until the minimum of vaccine (18 months - 2 years) or 14-20 months (herd immunity is achieved).

What does everyone else think? What do you think we should do after the lockdown?