How is EdTech procurement different when it’s impact-focused?
Traditional procurement processes for EdTech in schools often prioritize data security, teacher feedback, and cost-efficiency. These are important considerations. But if we truly want to tackle the global learning crisis and improve student outcomes, we must also prioritize the learning impact of the tools we’re investing in.
Balancing learning impact with cost, fairness, and transparency is a delicate act, especially for policymakers overseeing national EdTech rollouts. At our Centre, we support these decision-makers by grounding their procurement choices in rigorous, evidence-based frameworks. We’ve worked with ministries of education and partners like UNESCO to make sure procurement isn’t just about buying tech, but about achieving measurable results in the classroom.
One question we often hear is: How is this impact-focused approach different from traditional procurement of innovative solutions? The simple answer: it puts learning impact at the centre.
A helpful way to understand the difference is to compare the two approaches side by side.
Traditional Procurement: A Structured but Output-Focused Process
The traditional procurement process, as outlined by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in their High-Level Technology Guidance Note on Procurement (June 2018), follows eight key stages:
1. Country Partnership Strategy – Includes country- and sector-level procurement risk assessments.
2. Project Conceptualization – Transaction technical assistance and risk categorization.
3. Procurement Planning – Includes a detailed procurement plan, risk assessment, and project administration manual.
4. Bidding – Development and issuance of bidding documents.
5. Bid Evaluation – Review and evaluation of supplier proposals.
6. Contract Award – Selection and contracting of the winning bidder.
7. Implementation and Contract Management – Execution, monitoring, and management of the contract.
8. Feedback and Evaluation – Project completion reports and lessons learned.
The Asian Development Bank (2018) Procurement cycle. Adopted from: Asian Development Bank (2018). High-level technology guidance note on procurement.
This traditional procurement process has several important strengths. It starts by identifying potential risks early on, which helps shape stronger project designs. It follows a clear and structured plan to guide decisions, making the whole process more organized. By using competitive bidding, it ensures fairness, transparency, and good value for money. Once contracts are awarded, there are systems in place to make sure everyone meets their obligations. Finally, the process includes reviewing what worked and what didn’t, so that future projects can be even better.
What is its major limitation for procurement of educational technology is that it may focus on defining success by following a limited framework, whereby success is defined in terms of outputs. For example, did roll out occur in all schools and how many children were reached. Or how much money was saved. Or how much admin time was saved by teachers. These are important success criteria but they are not telling us anything about outcomes, that is whether children learnt.
Impact-focused procurement
The impact-focused procurement process is similar to traditional procurement process, but with one key difference: it places measurable outcomes at the centre. In this model, providers are not paid simply for delivering activities (like supplying tools), but for achieving real results, such as children making measurable progress on standardized tests.
A typical procurement process that focuses on impact follows the outcomes-based contracting stages. These are:
Problem Definition: Clearly define the educational problem or social challenge you aim to address with the EdTech tool.
Outcome Specification: Set out specific, measurable outcomes.
Market Engagement: Consult early with potential providers to refine outcomes and test feasibility of achieving them with current solutions.
Procurement and Tendering: Launch a competitive tender process centred on achieving outcomes, allowing flexibility in how solutions are delivered.
Contract Structuring: Build payment mechanisms that link funding directly to the achievement of outcomes (such as payment-by-results models).
Service Delivery: Providers deliver services with flexibility in their approach but are held accountable for the educational outcomes.
Performance Management and Verification: Monitor progress towards outcomes and independently verify results by research where needed.
Payment and Learning: Release payments once outcomes are verified and confirmed, and capture lessons to improve future procurement rounds.
Impact-focused procurement cycle for EdTech, ICEI, 2025
A key advantage of outcomes-based contracting is its focus on real impact rather than just activities. This helps reduce the risk of investing in technologies that make big promises but fail to deliver meaningful improvements in children’s learning. However, it’s important that these contracts don’t define impact too narrowly or rely on rigid structures. When outcomes are overly prescriptive, they can lead to unintended consequences, such as for example, tools developed that only teach to the test or focus on a single aspect of learning instead of supporting children’s overall development.
To address these limitations, it is important to follow a comprehensive framework of impact. The 5Es framework offers a research-based, consolidated approach that brings multiple impact dimensions together in a holistic evidence approach. It considers Efficacy, or how well the tool improves learning outcomes; Ethics, ensuring responsible data use and child protection; and Effectiveness, focusing on pedagogy and cost. It also includes Environment, assessing the tool’s fit with existing infrastructure and sustainability, and Equity factors like support for marginalized groups and learners with special needs. Together, the 5Es offer a comprehensive evaluation of impact.
For policy-makers, using an impact-focused, holistic evidence approach isn’t just good practice; it’s how national governments can turn procurement into progress, and investments into impact.