Building Trust in K–12 Procurement: What EdTech Teams Can Learn From Decision Science

The most common misconception among many clients in the  EdTech space is the belief that procurement is a technical exercise and the RFP is an ordering mechanism, a standardized transaction in which the “best product” rises to the top through logic alone. As a result, many promising companies stall because they misunderstand the psychology and organizational behavior that shape procurement decisions.

Procurement psychology begins with how School districts evaluate vendors. They consider providers within ecosystems of risk, limited capacity, institutional memory, and political pressures. Decision-makers interpret, anticipate, and assess whether the vendor introduces cognitive or operational load. As Harvard Business School researchers have repeatedly noted, institutional decision-making reflects the minimization of perceived uncertainty rather than the maximization of theoretical innovation (March & Olsen, 1989). Districts adopt tools they believe they can explain, implement, and do what’s best for students above all else. 

Startups often encounter a conceptual barrier at this stage. Many founders anchor their procurement approach in the internal logic of their product, such as its features, elegance, and modernity, rather than in the district’s underlying behavioral structures. A district's adoption of a new tool represents a change event that must be absorbed by teachers, principals, literacy coaches, special education staff, multilingual learner offices, finance teams, and school boards. Every one of those groups experiences structural change differently. The startup that treats procurement as a single decision-maker misunderstands the distributed authority within educational institutions. Once an understanding is developed, it should be woven into every aspect of your RFP responses. 

Part of this misalignment stems from what Ronald S. Burt describes as “structural holes”—the gaps between networks where information does not fully travel. Startups often treat procurement offices, curriculum departments, and IT teams as interchangeable nodes. Yet each of these groups occupies a distinct structural location. A procurement officer may prioritize compliance and defensibility. A curriculum director may look for alignment with state standards and pedagogical coherence. A technology director may be concerned about data security, interoperability, and bandwidth constraints. The startup that assumes these perspectives converge naturally misunderstands the social architecture of districts.

As unorthodox as it may sound, psychology is the emotional dimension within procurement. Implementation failures, data breaches, inaccessible materials, or unresponsive support teams create long memories. When evaluators read a proposal, they are reading for psychological cues: Does this vendor overclaim? Do they show signs of operational maturity? Do they appear to understand the constraints of public education? Research on organizational trust shows that districts judge unfamiliar partners through the lens of risk reduction rather than opportunity seeking (Kramer, 1999). If a startup’s proposal raises doubt, its product’s strength becomes irrelevant, highlighting the importance of building trust.

Scaling Up offers a parallel perspective. Organizations succeed when they identify and remove constraints before pursuing aggressive growth. Many startups pursue procurement as an expansion path before establishing internal clarity, documentation, or cross-team coordination. T. A company may promise extensive data reporting without a formal data governance plan, or robust multilingual support without evidence of translated materials. These inconsistencies feel minor to a founder but appear as risk markers to evaluators.

The proposal is not a sales document but an artifact of organizational behavior that reveals the company's internal architecture. A proposal that is inconsistent, vague, or poorly aligned signals structural issues rather than mere writing errors, underscoring the need for strategic coherence in your approach.

Let’s delve a layer deeper into how perspective plays into the ecosystem. Startups must anchor their approach not in the internal logic of their product, but in the external logic of the institutions they hope to serve. This shift emphasizes learning the behavioral rhythms of districts, the motivational structures of committees, and the informal networks that shape adoption long before the formal scoring begins, which is essential for strategic alignment. 

Once EdTech companies see procurement as a practice embedded in psychology, networks, and institutional behavior, it becomes far easier to understand why decisions unfold the way they do and how to meet districts where they are.

Write Way Consulting

Your partner in research-based strategy, K–12 expertise, and sustainable organizational growth.