Guideline for Drafting TOR
for Recording & Compliance Systems

Many government agencies and regulated organizations reference Gartner or other international analyst reports in their Terms of Reference (TOR) for recording and compliance systems. The intention is usually good: to ensure quality, reduce risk, and avoid “cheap, unreliable” technology.

However, a TOR that is too tightly bound to a single report or vendor can be perceived as vendor lock-in and may unintentionally exclude solutions that better fit Thailand’s regulatory and operational context. This page summarizes a practical approach to drafting TOR for voice recording, compliance recording, and Microsoft Teams Compliance that is transparent, fair, and still meets international standards including PDPA and GDPR.

View Recording Insights Solution Microsoft Teams Compliance Thailand
TOR Compliance Guideline

1. Why TORs Often Reference Gartner or Other Analyst Reports

The main driver is not simply “wanting a big global brand”, but managing risk, credibility, and auditability.

  • Risk reduction for decision makers – Referencing Gartner / Forrester / IDC gives auditors confidence that the chosen solution is recognized by an independent global body, not just personal preference.
  • A basic quality filter – It helps exclude low-quality or unstable products early in the process.
  • Less workload for technical and procurement teams – They don’t have to start benchmarking from scratch across dozens of unknown vendors.
  • Signals vendor stability – Vendors in such reports typically have a sizeable customer base, roadmap, and financial stability.

In this sense, international reports are often used as a “risk shield” for approvers and auditors, more than an explicit attempt to lock a specific brand.

2. Limitations of Using Gartner as a TOR Condition on Its Own

While analyst reports help increase confidence, a requirement such as “must appear in Gartner report XYZ” has several side effects.

If a TOR relies on “must be listed in Gartner” without additional contextual criteria, the agency may lose opportunities in innovation, cost optimization, and regulatory fit for Thailand.

3. How to Draft a TOR That Is Fair, Transparent, and Still International-Grade

The key is to shift from naming brands to defining standards and outcomes.

3.1 Use “or equivalent independent analyst” instead of a single report

Example wording in the TOR:

  • “The solution must be referenced in an international technology analyst report such as Gartner, Forrester, IDC, or an equivalent independent research organization.”
  • “The manufacturer must have reference deployments in regulated organizations such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, or government agencies, with at least X customers.”

This approach still provides a “risk shield” for approvers, while not restricting the competition to a single report or vendor list.

3.2 Emphasize legal and security standards

For recording and compliance systems, the TOR should clearly state:

  • Support for PDPA, GDPR, and Privacy by Design principles
  • Support for Data Residency – ability to store data in data centers located in Thailand if required
  • Comprehensive Audit Logs with traceability of access and actions for the retention period defined by the agency
  • Compliance with security standards such as ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2 or equivalent

These criteria speak directly to the heart of compliance more effectively than referencing one report alone.

3.3 Focus on “proven in similar environments”

Recording solutions that are already deployed in financial institutions, capital markets, insurance, or regulators provide strong evidence of operational suitability. The TOR can require relevant reference projects rather than naming a specific brand or report.

4. Applying a Risk-Based Procurement Mindset

Start with the question: “What risks does the agency need to prevent or mitigate?” and work backwards into technical requirements.

Once these risk questions are answered, the TOR becomes a risk protection standard instead of a “brand selection document”. It also makes future audits and justifications to oversight bodies much clearer and defensible.

5. Recommendations for Executives and TOR Committees

“A good TOR should define standards, not brands. It should open the door for any vendor that meets those standards, while ensuring the agency receives a secure, compliant, and future-ready solution.”

  • Use the concept of “independent analyst report or equivalent” instead of a single named report.
  • Clearly define PDPA, data residency, audit log, and security requirements as first-class criteria.
  • Require reference customers in regulated sectors or similar environments, especially within Thailand or the region.
  • Design requirements based on real operational and regulatory risks (risk-based), not brand familiarity.

This approach helps the agency obtain technology that truly meets international standards, reduces audit risk, and simultaneously encourages fair market competition—giving innovative, well-designed solutions for Thailand a chance to compete and grow.

6. Explore Real-World Architectures & Solutions from Vasvox

If your organization is considering a TOR for voice recording, Microsoft Teams Compliance Recording, or AI-driven compliance, the following pages are great starting points for technical and architectural alignment.

Vasvox can help translate your regulatory, technical, and business requirements into a reference architecture and TOR draft that align with PDPA, sector-specific regulations, and budget constraints.

Talk to Our Compliance Team Send Us Your Draft TOR for Review