What’s in a Name? or Enterprise Systems’ Reincarnations (Part I)

Well, the ERP Graveyard blog might sometimes be slightly deceiving, since not all enterprise resource planning (ERP) products necessarily die there. Some of them might even be resurected under a different name and ownership.

To that end, Infor might even seem like old news today. It’s been five years since its formation (no pun intended here, given its subsequent acquisition of former Formation Systems, with the Infor Optima PLM product as a result). Also, many articles have meanwhile been written on our web site about Infor’s collection/arsenal of once all but deceased ERP products, such as:

* Infor ERP LX (formerly SSA BPCS),
* Infor ERP LN (formerly Baan),
* Infor ERP System21 (formerly Geac System21 and JBA System21),
* Infor ERP Visual (formerly Lilly Visual),
* Infor ERP XA (formerly MAPICS XA),
* Infor ERP SyteLine (formerly MAPICS SyteLine, Frontstep SyteLine and Symix SyteLine),
* Infor ERP Adage (formerly SCT Adage),
* Infor ERP SX.enterprise (formerly NX-Trend),
* Infor ERP FACTS (formerly Aperum) and
* Infor ERP TRANS4M (formerly BRAIN Trans4m).

However, 2007 has seen the emergence of two brand new names in the space — Consona Corporation and Solarsoft Business Solutions. In March 2007, M2M Holdings Inc. changed its name to Consona Corporation. The current Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jeff Tognoni , and the curent financial backer, Battery Ventures, started M2M Holdings back in 2003 with their purchase of former Made2Manage Systems. Over the past three years, the company has added nine more-or-less known ERP and CRM companies to the business and has more than tripled in size. This expansion, in addition to the confusion in the marketplace associated with the difference between M2M Holdings and the Made2Manage ERP solution per se, has spurred the company to find a clearer way to be able to discuss and market its various product lines.

So, the company put a team together that would find a name that is “not only memorable, unique and available, but also whose meaning will better reflect what the company is trying to do as a corporation” -— and that name is Consona. According to the company’s communication sent to industry analysts at the time:

“…the new name, Consona, was derived from the concept of consonance, which describes the perfect alignment of elements within a single entity. When you picture consonance, you might imagine puzzle pieces clicking together, a well-executed play on the football field, or the faultless harmony of an orchestra. We think our new name represents why we are unique as a software and services provider because it summarizes the aspects of our strategy that remain central to each line of business within the company—including high-fit software, unsurpassed customer care, and efficient, profitable operations”.

While some competitors might have mockingly said “Well, was the Vowana or Vowela name already taken?”, both M2M Holdings (the predecessor firm) and Consona Corporation today have proven their business model, if one is to judge by growth and profitability. Consona’a acquisition strategy is based on the following three aims:

1. To capture specific industry expertise and technology (i.e., new vertical segments and/or new software or services to fill out the solution in any particular segment/market);
2. To apply its operating model of driving down costs while driving up quality, service, and growth; and
3. To expand international distribution capability.

Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find any of Consona’s acquisitions so far that could be qualified as a failure or an acquisition without a sound rationale. True, some acquired vendors might have been distressed or in a rut, somewhat stalled (financially or in terms of a mind share) and needing a shot in the arm or so prior to being acquired by Consona, but hardly anyone can now dispute the future viability of the solution per se.

In fact, although the former owners of some of the acquired vendors might be gone today (some were not even that interested in running the business before the acquisition and wanted an exit strategy), it is not really the case with critical product managers or developers. I recently met with AXIS and Cimnet (parts of Consona) and have vicariously learned that the staff at both places have been with the company an average of 16 years, plus, the founder of Cimnet is still there, now as a managing director of the division.

Therefore, Consona is today an enterprise-class application software and services provider for both small-to-medium enterprises (SME) and Global 2000 businesses. The customer size and industry depend on the solutions from the Consona portfolio, which currently consists of eight ERP product lines in manufacturing sectors and two customer relationship management (CRM) product lines for the professional services and manufacturing realms. The holding company has over 4,500 customers and about 700 employees, and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States (US), with over 40 locations across the Americas, Europe, Asia-Pacific (including India) and the Middle East. Two private equity groups, Battery Ventures and Thoma Cressey Bravo, jointly own Consona.

As for the current company’s organization and integration of disparate parts, the holding company consists of three divisions, whereby each division has a defined target market with dedicated products and services, a general manager with full profit & loss (P&L) responsibility, and dedicated teams for sales, product management, product development, professional services, support and education. Shared corporate services include administrative things like finance & accounting, human resources (HR), information technology (IT) department and marketing. Consona executives provide management oversight on development, services, support and education, whereas centralized functional organizations bring economy of scale and process efficiency to all functions. These divisions are:

1. Consona Industry Solutions, with five business units:

* DTR, a Consona business unit, with the product: DTR Plastics ERP, acquired in August 2004, a Consona industry solution for plastics processors with up to $50 million in revenues;
* Cimnet Systems, a Consona business unit, with products like Paradigm ERP [evaluate this product], iQuote, Engenix, Navipoint, CIM Factory, and BPO Services. These are all Consona industry solutions acquired in December 2005 for international printed circuit boards (PCB) manufacturers with up to $2 billion in revenues;
* Encompix, a Consona business unit with the ERP product Encompix [evaluate this product], a Consona industry solution acquired in March 2006, for project-based engineer-to-order (ETO) manufacturers with up to $200 million in revenues;
* AXIS, a Consona business unit with the product AXIOM, a Consona industry solution acquired in January 2006, for metals, wire and cable manufacturers ranging from small businesses to Global 2000 corporations; and
* Relevant, a Consona business unit with the ERP product INFIMACS II (a.k.a. Relevant [evaluate this product]), a Consona industry solution for aerospace and defense [A&D] manufacturers up to $1 billion in revenues.

2. Consona CRM, with two CRM solutions:

* Onyx, a Consona CRM solution [evaluate this product], acquired in August 2006 for service, sales and marketing organizations in the mid- to upper- SME to Global 2000 range of sizes and within the financial services, healthcare, government, professional services, and high-tech sectors; and
* Knova, a Consona CRM solution, acquired in March 2007 for service and support organizations in the mid- to upper- SME to Global 2000 range of sizes within the high-tech (hardware and software), telecom and complex equipment (medical and manufacturing) sectors.

3. Consona ERP, with three products:

* Made2Manage, a Consona ERP solution [evaluate this product] acquired in August 2003 for discrete “to-order” and mixed-mode manufacturers with up to $50 million in revenues;
* Intuitive, a Consona ERP solution [evaluate this product] acquired in July 2006 also for discrete “to-order” and mixed-mode manufacturers with up to $50 million in revenues; and
* SupplyWorks, a Consona on-demand/software as a service (SaaS) supply chain management (SCM) solution, acquired in July 2006 for supplier collaboration and supply chain visibility (SCV) and for automotive, transportation, machinery, instrumentation and high-tech companies with up to 4 billion in revenues.

Consona’s branding strategy is in fact similar to Johnson & Johnson (i.e., Band-Aid, Aveeno, Acuvue, Tylenol, etc.), with each product line marketed, sold and operationally supported separately, but also identified by the master brand. In other words, the only thing that is new is the Consona name, as it is still the same company with the same strategy and vision, as well as with the same owners, management team and personnel working in the existing office locations. And most importantly, the firm pledges to actively sell, support, maintain, and enhance its various product lines/brands.

The Consona Industry Solutions unit’s future direction seems most straightforward — each product continues to be, on a separate track, enhanced to compete within its defendable vertical niche (whereby some of these products are the leaders in their respective sector). True, there might be some sharing of best practices, given that some products are on same technologies (i.e., DTR, AXIS and Encompix are on the Progress OpenEdge development platform) or some products might leverage functionalities of the others (e.g., some products might benefit from the CRM, project-based accounting or analytics functionality of the other), but there are no strong indications of that taking place yet in earnest.

However, the ERP and CRM units have recently had their respective products’ enhancements and there might still be some temptation for converging the products, and these will be analyzed in depth in forthcoming research article on our web site and newsletter. For now, it suffices to say that Consona ERP has over 2,500 customers, who are small to midsize discrete “to-order”, make-to-stock (MTS) or mixed-mode manufacturers that are also Microsoft technology users.

Because Made2Manage and Intuitive fall under the same Consona ERP umbrella, users can choose between the best of each solution: 1) Made2Manage’s mature customer service and functionality (albeit on an outgoing technology — Microsoft Visual FoxPro [VFP]) and 2) Intuitive’s technological progressiveness. Both focus on a narrow sector of the manufacturing marketplace and both have a decent amount of pertinent functionality. Although former competitors in theory, the two ERP solutions have rarely competed due to Intuitive’s strengths in the MTS and repetitive environments versus Made2Manage’s made-to-order (MTO)/assemble-to-order (ATO)/job shop stronghold.

These subtle nuances and personality of each product will be differentiators for prospective customers to choose one of the two. Thus, the future direction is to continue building the two ERP products without building a converged product and, consequently, with no forced upgrades for customers. Intuitive will be the international product owing to its multi-national, multi-site capabilities and modern technology. Intuitive 8.1 continues the product’s leadership in .NET-managed code software. It includes the more compelling, fully integrated Intuitive user interface (UI), and it fully supports the Microsoft .NET Framework.

The Part II of this topic will analyze Solarsoft, and how all these consolidating companies might operate now in a somewhat changed climate owing to deflated venture capital (VC) inverstors’ sentiments and lesser availability of private equity. Your views, comments and opinions, etc. are, as usual, welcome in the meantime.

Tracing Food Quality and Safety, or We Are What We Eat, After All (Part I)

Besides the ongoing (seemingly never-ending) presidential campaign and celebrity scandals/gossip, food safety is very much in the news. Indeed, incidents of outbreaks, contamination, product recalls and whatnot flood TV channels as breaking news every now and then. Consumers, governments and the various members of the food supply chain are rightly concerned about food safety, and there has been increasing pressure for food and consumer product goods (CPG) supply chain traceability, in a pervasive manner.

Consumers and governments (both becoming ever-more educated and informed on one side, but still confused on the other side) are concerned about the safety of the food supply and protecting the public. While demanding more product choice and delivery speed, consumers have been voicing fears over food safety in the wake of recent salmonella outbreaks (remember the contaminated spinach or major chocolate recall cases?), cases of pet deaths due to poisonous imported pet food, lead-tainted imported children’s toys, anti-freeze tainted imported toothpaste, and so on…

The ever-longer and global food supply chain (often called “from farm to fork”) includes crop farmers/growers (utilizing fertilizers and pesticides), feed processors, livestock farmers (that might feed and treat animals accordingly [or not]), manufacturers (primary and value-add food processors), packaging and labeling sites, distributors, retailers, and food service companies (restaurants and cafeterias).

These supply chain member companies have to be concerned about the consumer safety issues, plus the potential negative and even fatal impact on their brands and businesses. For instance, high-and-mighty retailers customarily want ever higher service levels from suppliers (without any negative publicity), while the overall industry itself wants to protect “brand” value and reduce recall costs.

Olin Thompson, a former regular TEC contributor (e.g., see the Food Safety, Government Regulations, and Brand Protection article), editor at Food Engineering Magazine and currently Vice President (VP) of Industry Strategy at Lawson Software, tells us that all this media attention on food safety has had a real effect on any potential impact of a food safety incident. Increased public awareness actually helps minimize any potential negative impact on the consumer. People are more aware of the danger and the attention of the media helps communicate and alert the public. For the food supply chain, that is good news.

However, the media has also increased the negative impact on the reputation of supplier companies and brands that have a problem. One food safety incident, communicated through the media, can have a fatal impact on a brand or even a company. Food industry executives are painfully aware of their obligations to the public and to their shareholders when it comes to food safety.

Under European Union (EU) Regulation 178/2002 – Article 18, “traceability” is defined as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, and food producing animal substance through all stages of production, processing and distribution. This has imposed major challenges on the food and beverage (F&B) industries, impacting all food and feed business operators including primary producers.

The regulation relies on a “one up, one down” approach, meaning systems and procedures must be in place to identify from whom and to whom these products have been supplied. Both EU food law and the Anti Bioterrorism Act in the United States (US) from 2002 consider traceability as being able to trace a product one step backwards and one step forwards.

Further, the revised General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) (2001/95/EC) ensures that food products can be traced all the way to their point of production. Last but not least, International Standards Organization (ISO) Regulation no. 8402 defines it as the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications.

Thompson suggests that the food supply chain needs to be concerned about the following “Four P’s”:

1. Prevent — The best defense is a good offense. The food supply chain has long worked hard to insure the safety of their products. The application of quality control systems, sanitation procedures, common Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) and compliance to various government and industry food safety regulations are a constant in the industry. Food companies must continue to invest in improvements in food safety in an effort to improve on their record;
2. Prepare — Regardless of their efforts to prevent a food safety incident, the food supply chain understands that they must be ready if an incident does occur. Preparing for an incident means being ready to efficiently and effectively determine the nature of any problem and recall any potentially harmful product, no matter where in the food supply chain it currently resides, even on the consumer’s shelf;
3. Proactively respond — When an incident occurs, well-run companies will be able to respond quickly. They will proactively communicate with the public to minimize any impact on the consumer but also to minimize any potential negative impact on their brand and company. They will be able to quickly locate affected product(s) and determine the cause of the incident; and
4. Prove — Regulatory bodies and major players in the food supply chain are asking the various members of the food supply chain to prove to them that they are preventing, preparing and able to proactively respond to food safety incidents. In addition, conscientious and forward thinking food companies are rehearsing (so-called mock recalls) to insure that they are ready and able to proactively respond in the event of an actual incident.

In this uncertain world, even the best of automated traceability systems will not eliminate problems caused by food contamination, outbreaks of disease or even accidental mishandling of food products. Accurate transparent traceability, however, effectively reduces risk exposure by enabling food producers to identify, isolate and correct the problem quickly and efficiently. As a result, public health is protected, consumers are reassured, and the financial impact of such incidents can be minimized.

But who gets the blame when a food safety incident occurs? All members of the food supply chain are not treated equally. No matter where in the food supply chain an incident occurs, the media attention will be focused on any consumer brand or retailer associated with the problem. Companies who have branded products are especially at risk: the stronger the brand, the more negative the impact. The media will write more about a well-known brand, people will remember the incident longer with a renowned brand.

These companies are more at risk when it comes to an impact on their business and shareholder values than others. Since the impact can be so great, these companies should consider preparing for problems anywhere in the supply chain, taking responsibility for the tracking and tracing data needed to proactively respond to a problem. Anywhere in the supply chain, from farm to fork, a food safety incident can have a major impact on a company’s brand and even its very existence.

Are all food companies and types of food at equal risk? No, some types of products are naturally more vulnerable than others. Meats (beef, poultry, pork, etc.) including seafood (fish and aquaculture) are most prone to problems due to extreme perishability, contamination and disease spreading risk, followed by fruits and vegetables (including animal feed) and dairy products.

An interesting (and likely lesser-known) fact: as a percentage of incident per servings, bean sprouts are the most dangerous food we eat, since they are grown in a warm and damp environment, just like a petri dish.

Some highly processed foods are of course less vulnerable. To be fair, there are many CPG companies that already have traceability systems in place, and moreover, there are lots of paper-based systems that may be adequate here.

Opportunity (Besides Costs) for Visionary Companies

One school of thought is that food traceability regulations could bring about opportunity besides costs (and a pain in the neck), especially since early 2007, when the EU legislation started requiring traceability of food and beverage (F&B) products. Sure, consumers will not pay for traceability costs, but the legislation does provide opportunities for manufacturers generally to address end-to-end supply chain visibility, plant data collection and so on, and get better real-time performance measurements in place. F&B manufacturers have a choice: doing nothing, doing the minimum to comply, or exploiting traceability legislation to address many supply chain issues.

For one, accessing emerging market entries such as China and a number of developing countries highlight new challenges and risks for food safety for exports and imports. As seen by the abovementioned negative examples, the Chinese food and CPG industries and industry regulators are not yet able to keep up with the requirements and standards of other countries and their retailers, especially in the US and EU.

Lack of proven traceability in the food value chain can be used to put up trade barriers and deny market access. The banning of Norwegian salmon in Russia, British beef in continental Europe (and elsewhere), Indian grapes in the EU market, and American beef in Japan are just a few examples. GrapeNet, a governmental initiative in India, was set up in response to the ban to assure access to the EU market.

A few years ago, the American beef industry – reportedly a two billion US dollar industry – was shut down practically overnight for two years because of Japan’s refusal to accept imported beef products from the US due to health fears. Arguably, with no mechanism for proving to the Japanese authorities that its product was safe, and with no solution to
do so, the trade route was shut-off.

But other countries like New Zealand and South Africa benefited from the situation when the price of beef rocketed. Not only did they deliver the right information (assurances) to the market, they also took advantage of the opportunity and increased their market share.

Therefore, growing consumer demand for information and accompanying brand differentiation makes tracing capability a golden opportunity to build business differentiators. If a company can utilize value-added traceability capabilities to demonstrate its role in the product lifecycle and back up premium product claims (e.g., origin, organic, fair trade, free from, etc.), it will be in a position to offer value-added information about the product and enhance brand equity, reputation and margins.

Moreover, if a food incident does occur, the companies involved who are in possession of a traceability system can much more quickly take responsibility or prove their innocence, thereby saving money and face. Some forward thinking companies use traceability to create evidence or require their approved suppliers to prove that certain things happened in the production process.

One example could be a farmer that is able to document that no hormones, pesticides or antibiotics were used in their product. The ability to prove these attributes builds trust and consumer confidence in the brand. Smart F&B manufacturers will use product safety as competitive advantage to promote their abilities to retailers.

As a recap, there are basically three key requirements for traceability systems, whereby manufacturers must be able to:

* identify batches of all ingredients and products;
* have information on when and where they are moved or transformed; and
* have a system that links that data.

Possible Solutions

There are numerous existing and emerging supply chain management (SCM) solutions, at several levels, which F&B (and other manufacturers for that matter) can apply without reinventing the wheel. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, for instance, has undergone considerable testing, and constantly improved support software from the major enterprise resource planning (ERP) and SCM vendors will assure its use. It is also the case that issues around traceability have been publicized and resolved for years, e.g., in the pharmaceuticals and aerospace and defense (A&D) sectors.

In fact, it might be strange that the food and beverage (F&B) segment is only now catching up with traceability, considering the “we are what we eat” adage. One reason thereof could lie in the fact that inside even the most modern food companies we will still find several information technology (IT) systems supporting the needs of different parts of the organization. Many will be using an ERP solution like Lawson M3 (formerly Intentia Movex) to manage most of the needs of the business.

Still, many other disparate systems are required such as product lifecycle management (PLM), enterprise asset management (EAM), manufacturing execution systems (MES)/laboratory information management systems (LIMS), warehousing management systems (WMS), supplier specifications, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems or other departmental solutions.

All these point solutions might be doing a terrific job, but probably with a minimal level of integration, and little transparency of information or easy access to all related information on a lot or batch from the complete set of information held inside the company. As a worst case scenario, some companies still using basic paperwork for key pieces of traceability information.

That’s to say that, in the past, food manufacturers, processors, distributors and retailers had to typically turn to a variety of point IT solutions to solve specific, and usually localized, business problems. Businesses have since become more complex and data more voluminous, and companies are thus increasingly turning to integrated enterprise software systems to tie together their main business processes and transactions.

But, as said earlier on, in most companies and certainly at the supply chain (or partial supply chain) level, islands of key information still exist, including details from the LIMS system, data from the MES area, and information from the transporter. The back-office ERP system could never possibly hold all of this information.

Also, much energy has been invested in technology for “capturing” data (e.g., RFID, bar coding, and LIMS) rather than a method for “sharing” information. However, a new generation of Web browser-based traceability applications are being developed that enable this detailed interrogation of the data supplied by “capture” systems.

Part II of this blog post will introduce the Lawson M3 Trace Engine as one such stand-alone solution. Your views, comments, opinions, etc. about the abovementioned food safety issues are welcome in the meantime.

Deltek’s Second Bite at the IPO Cherry (Part II)

Well, a few months after Part I of this blog post was published, which focused on Deltek’s pre-New Mountain Capital private equity investment era, the time has finally come for us to analyze why being again publicly traded should (or should not) work better for Deltek this time. If one is to judge merely by the most recent financial figures, it would appear to be working well, but my focus here is on some lingering “softer” issues too.

So, when the new management team took the helm at Deltek in mid 2005, it realized that many good things had happened over the previous two decades at the company, but that one can never be too complacent. Indeed, room for improvements existed in many regards, or at least some challenges could always be turned into opportunities.

Sure, in many project-oriented sectors, such as Accounting & Auditing, Aerospace & Defense (A&D), Architecture/Engineering/Construction (A/E/C), Government Agencies, Government Contracting, Engineering/Environmental, Legal Services, Non-profits, IT & Computer Consulting, Professional Services and Systems Integration (SI), Deltek had penetrated vertical markets with over 100 firms as customers.

While the supremacy within the government contractors has long been established via the Deltek Costpoint [evaluate this product] and Deltek GCS Premier [evaluate this product] products, the “newcomer” Deltek Vision [evaluate this product] product has yet to make such inroads in the sectors like Media Services, Printing and Publishing, Property Management, Research, Advertising & Public Relations, Construction, Contract Manufacturing, Healthcare Services and so on.

In other words, Deltek still needs to expand beyond its above-listed primary industries despite the fact that endorsements like those that 80 percent of the Engineering News Record (ENR) Magazine’s Top 500 Design Firms are Deltek customers and 67 percent of Top 100 Federal Contractors are Deltek customers (according to the Washington Technology magazine) continue to speak volumes.

Also, the “project-centric”, “project-plus” or “choice of project-based businesses” mantras might have meanwhile run their course (at least as automatic guarantees of success), especially in light of mounting competitive products. These start from large generic enterprise resource planning (ERP) providers like SAP, Oracle or Lawson, via traditional mid-market ERP providers like Epicor, Microsoft Dynamics and Agresso, to entry level solutions like those from Axium or Microsoft Office Project. In addition, there are point-solution providers like Primavera and Artemis and industry-specific players like Maconomy, Meridian Systems and BST Global.

After thorough analyses and considerations, Deltek decided to tackle both existing and new customers as well as new markets by further penetrating current vertical segments, entering new verticals and via a geographic expansion. But before that could take place in earnest, Deltek also spotted an opportunity of some “greener pastures” in terms of offering new products (capabilities) and expanding their functional footprint, both by pursuing strategic acquisitions and organically developing new products.

To the end of significantly expanding its product portfolio and thus delivering the industry’s most robust Enterprise Project Management (EPM) solution through strategic acquisitions, Deltek has since early 2006 conducted three well thought-out acquisitions. It started with Welcom in March 2006, which was the leader in the realms of project portfolio management (PPM) and earned value management (EVM) with established products like Open Plan and Cobra. The company had about 250 renowned clients, including General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE, to bolster Deltek’s already formidable client roster in the A&D sector.

The second acquisition was of C/S Solutions Inc. in July 2006, which remains the leader in EVM analytics with an equally established product called wInsight. The company had about 500 clients, including virtually every A&D contractor and government agency, such as NASA, the United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Energy (DoE) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Deltek bought C/S Solutions because it is the standard for how these government agencies view earned value data.

Last but not least, the AIM (Applied Integration Management) consultancy was acquired in April 2007 as a leading provider of EVM/EPM consulting. AIM had high-profile A&D customers including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon and some others in the Engineering & Construction sector. Deltek made this acquisition to make sure that EVM experts implemented Deltek EVM solutions to offer the best combination of technology and expertise in the marketplace.

Prior to these additions, the traditional explanations about why Deltek would win against the generic ERP providers had meanwhile gradually lost an edge. Indeed, many of the above-mentioned large ERP providers have lately taken steps to support the unique needs of project-based organizations (where they traditionally fell short) as well as to address the issues of lower total cost of ownership (TCO), ease of deployment and higher return on investment (ROI).

They have done this with more available out-of-the-box functionality for specific project-based business needs that, in turn, results in significantly fewer customizations than “one size fits all” products. They have also made forays into governance via built-in process controls, to challenge Deltek’s “Most audited software in the world” theme. In addition, the inflow of incumbent lower-end and mid-market products has neutralized Deltek’s justification that high-end generic ERP solutions are also too costly to own and operate.

Therefore, Deltek rightfully realized that its mastery in EVM and PPM should provide it with another quantum leap over the competition. More on the concept of EVM can be found in the IT-Director and ZDNet’s respective posts, as well as in TEC’s earlier article titled Enterprise Management Software Vendor Welcomes Additions . In essence, EVM is a system for project planning and control used by the US federal government to:

* Objectively measure a project’s progress;
* Forecast its completion date and final cost; and
* Provide schedule and budget variances along the way.

In other words, EVM takes a snapshot view of where exactly a project is against where it should (was planned) to be, but at a far more complex level and with more variables than standard time-based project management (scheduling) tools. EVM also allows project status to be understood with more precision. Namely, whereas many systems tend to just look at how well task fulfillment is going against the plan schedule, EVM looks at more variables, including actual time and budget spent to a specific point (i.e., the BTC [budget to completed] or EAC [estimated at complete] metrics) of the project and actual future resource availability against the planned values.

The recently minted Deltek EPM (Enterprise Project Management) suite [evaluate this product] enables firms to comply with the EVM methodology of project costing and management. Earned value and risk management are increasingly becoming regulatory requirements within the American National Standards Institute (ANSI 748) the US Government Office of Management & Budget (OMB 300) mandates.

Recently, the US federal government mandated that contractors comply with EVM methodology and have begun auditing for compliance. In fact, as of mid 2006, earned value contract requirements thresholds have been lowered to $20 million (from previously $70 million for research & development [R&D] projects and from $300 million for projects involving production) for some agencies.

In plain English, while ”Big Brother” might be generous in awarding funds for defense projects, it also wants the ability to conduct an audit at any time and discern the health of the project both in terms of time and money spent (with the prerogative to pull the plug when deemed appropriate).

To the end of being ready for auditors on short notice, the Deltek Briefing Wizard tool (coming from C/S Solutions) lets the user select a range of EVM metrics and key performance indicators (KPI’s) that should be of interest to the auditor, and then the product quickly spits out a Microsoft PowerPoint slide deck. Seeing this product demo has been the most impressive for me, at least for not expecting this kind of “coolness” from traditionally conservative Deltek.

Therefore, I would imagine a healthy uptake on the EPM suite (and its parts) amongst Deltek’s large government contractor installed based, given the need for compliance with these new, non-negotiable federal mandates that make those “gravy train” contracts a matter of the remote past. The average selling price for an EPM suite ranges from $50,000 to $75,000 and anyone can do the math (given several thousand of “low hanging fruit” existing Deltek customers).

The Deltek EPM suite includes a slew of EVM and PPM tools designed to compliment the core Deltek application suites. The individual EPM products cover the realm of project management (i.e., the WelcomPortfolio, WelcomRisk, Risk+, Open Plan, Cobra and WelcomHome tools) and analytics (i.e., the wInsight, C/S Glue, Briefing Wizard, Connect Modules and Web & Dasboard tools).

Today’s increased project complexity significantly increases risk to costs, schedules, and resources across the entire project lifecycle, which consists of the Visualizing, Identifying, Defining, Initiating, Planning, Executing, Controlling and Closing project phases. Without an effective project management set of tools, according to certain Standish Group and Deloitte Consulting stats, project companies face:

* Project cost overruns: commonly 150-200 percent over budget;
* A shrinking resource pool: tens of thousands of project management professionals leaving or retiring in the next several years; and
* Schedule overruns: often averaging 52 percent.

To address these challenges, Deltek now offers solutions for every above-mentioned stage of the project lifecycle to plan, manage and execute projects to completion. To that end, the unified Deltek EPM suite integrates all critical project management processes, by combining:

* Portfolio Analysis, which spans from Visualizing to Planning project phases and is covered by the Deltek WelcomPorfolio product;
* Risk Management, which spans from Visualizing to Controlling project phases and is covered by the Deltek WelcomRisk, Open Plan and Risk+ products;
* Planning & Scheduling, which spans from Defining to Closing project phases and is covered by the Deltek Cobra and ProjectConnect products;
* Cost & Earned Value Management, which spans from Defining to Closing project phases and is covered by the Deltek Open Plan product; and
* Collaboration, which spans throughout all the project phases and is covered by the Deltek WelcomHome and wInsight portal-like products.

Project-oriented businesses of all size have to be concerned about understanding the entire project management life cycle. Whether a firm has one project or a dozen or 100 to conduct, having all the components that define EPM will be increasingly critical for it to manage the projects and equally important, to position itself for growth.

Deltek EPM was devised to ensure that users are doing the right projects, the projects that best fit their goals, and then to help them manage those projects to maximize the payback. That’s to say that such solutions also help companies maximize the resources deployed on a project while also ensuring a reasonable profit is generated while working on the project. This is particularly true if it all can be done within a single, unified enterprise solution to avoid multiple project risks.

To that end, full visibility of portfolio and project performance KPIs should eliminate surprises, while risks can be minimized through quantitative and qualitative risk analysis (e.g., risk registers, histograms, completion probability tables, cost probability tables, etc.). Additionally, integrated earned value data gathering, analysis and reporting reduces compliance risks, while cost overruns can be eliminated through more accurate schedules and resource management. Finally, a scaleable multi-user/project platform should standardize best practices and drive enterprise value, visibility, project velocity and repeatability.

Let’s see how it all could and should work on a high level. First of all, the output of risk identification and assessment directly affects cost and scheduling. At the highest level, portfolio analysis should use all of the metrics from cost, schedule, and risk to see the bigger portfolio picture and make informed decisions about the project mix (picking the right, profitable projects only).

The underlying cost and schedule data provide the detailed data that make up the metrics and KPI’s, while a risk management solution should feed from planning and scheduling utilizing the project plan to identify risks against the work breakdown schedule (WBS). Wrapping this all up would provide project collaboration portals allowing all the project stakeholders (Project Managers, Team Members, Customers, Contractors, etc.) to keep them informed about the projects they are involved in.

Again, it is important to understand everything above within the context of EVM and related analytics (to analyze multiple, interrelated project variances), whereby Deltek’s related solutions help clients control costs, measure earned value, and comply with a plethora of federally mandated reporting requirements (i.e., ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998, DOD EVMIG [Earned Value Management Implementation Guide], SOX Section 404, OMB Circular # A-11 Part 7 [Section 300], etc.).

In that regard, Deltek Cobra, after importing project schedules, baselines and WBS, helps with project cost management, change management and forecasting. The solution features integration not only with the Open Plan sibling product, but also with the Microsoft Project/Project Server and Primavera project scheduling products.

These new products certainly can create opportunities for Deltek to capture new customers and new markets, and Deltek intends to do that via further penetrating current verticals, entering new verticals and expanding geographically. The most apparent case for further penetration of existing verticals would be within government contracting, where the expanded EPM product line (through the above strategic acquisitions) present significant up-sell opportunities to current customers.

Part III of this blog post will wrap up Deltek’s opportunities, which in great part stem from the latest developments to its traditional breadwinning products, and also analyze some still outstanding challenges for the upbeat vendor. Your comments, opinions, suggestions, etc. are welcome in the meantime.

It’s the Aftermarket Service, Stupid! (Part I)

Regardless of the economic environment (and sentiments), I always think of the opportunity within the aftermarket service and support as a profitable, high-margin and customer-captive business, and yet, still underserved. General Electric (GE) would be the proverbial example of a company that has focused on aftermarket opportunities, going so far as to call itself a “services” company as opposed to a “products” company.

GE indeed, starting with Jack Welch’s long chief executive officer (CEO) tenure, has been widely reported to have significantly increased both its total revenue and profitability by focusing on services opportunities in addition to developing world-class products.

The manufacturing corporate giant has certainly proven the value of serving the product aftermarket, which has recently been purported in a quantifiable manner by many pundits as a high margin business. For instance, AMR Research reported recently that businesses earn 45 percent of gross profits from the aftermarket, yet it is only 24 percent of their revenues, while a recent article in Harvard Business Review claims that we all spend US$1 trillion every year on assets we already own.

A related software category term was mentioned in TEC’s 2003 article titled Service Lifecycle Management - Tapping into the Value of the Product Aftermarket. Namely, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) is a business initiative focused on servicing a company’s products, and the customers that bought them, after the product has been sold. Simply put, SLM focuses on making more money from the product after the initial sale. But it is more than that — it is also a way to become a strategic part of the customer’s business after the sale is completed.

In another Harvard Business Review article titled Winning in the Aftermarket from May 2006, MCA Solutions’ co-founders, Dr. Morris Cohen and Dr. Vipul Agrawal, shared their insights on opportunities to increase corporate profitability through better management of the service business. The “Six Steps for Managing Service Networks” outlined therein explain how all service-oriented companies (not to be confused with “service-oriented architecture [SOA]”!) can take advantage of these opportunities.

Industry leaders like Cisco Systems have reportedly been leveraging MCA’s Service Planning and Optimization (SPO™) suite [evaluate this product] to do just that, and have benefited from reduced service parts inventory, improved service levels and greater profit.

Servigistics, one of the leaders in the nascent SLM software category, refers to it as “strategic service management”, which entails service parts planning & optimization, service labor planning & scheduling and service parts pricing. The focus of today’s blog post is the realm of service parts planning & optimization.

TEC’s 2006 article titled Enterprises May Be Overlooking Profits from After-sales Service concurs with this particular opportunity. Namely, if service parts (including their availability and pricing) and service personnel management are well managed, manufacturers can significantly improve their profits from service operations. This will in turn lead to significant overall profit margins.

This brings us again to MCA Solutions, a privately held company headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the United States (US). Besides Servigistics, MCA Solutions has become a “usual suspect” in most big-ticket service parts planning and optimization evaluations.

The above-mentioned MCA’s award-winning SPO software suite has helped a number of aerospace and defense (A&D), high-tech and capital equipment companies of all sizes transform their service supply chains into bottom-line business drivers, by reducing (excess and obsolete) inventory, lowering support costs and improving service levels to maximize customer satisfaction. These, in turn, often result with higher revenue and increased equipment availability.

Outside the service parts planning & optimization market, the “MCA” name can be confused for a record label, museum of contemporary art, and whatnot, but the company’s brand recognition in its target market needs not much bolstering. Virtually anyone dealing with service parts planning and optimization knows that MCA stands for Morris Cohen & Associates.

Dr. Morris Cohen is the Matsushita (Panasonic) professor of manufacturing and logistics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and co-director of Wharton’s Fishman-Davidson Center for Operations Management. Dr. Cohen has spent three decades researching, planning, and designing advanced value chain systems and working with customers such as IBM, Cisco, Applied Materials, Intel, General Motors, and the United States (US) Navy.

In 1999, he co-founded MCA Solutions to bring the intellectual capital of service value chain optimization from the classroom into the technology marketplace (i.e., the real world). Another MCA co-founder, Dr. Agrawal, was a student of Dr. Cohen’s at Wharton before becoming assistant professor in the operations management department at the Stern School of Business at New York University. Today, Dr. Cohen serves as chairman of MCA’s board, while Dr. Agrawal is MCA’s executive vice president of products.

The mere concept of inventory optimization sounds quite simple: one has to balance the risk of stockouts (i.e., missed sales opportunities translated into poor customer service) with the (often hefty) investment (and tied up capital and cash) in inventory (safety stocks). This becomes sort of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

But the situation becomes much more complicated when one has to take into consideration multi-echelon distribution channels that entail hundreds or thousands of possible part locations worldwide, and even hundred thousand parts/stock-keeping units (SKU’s). The multi-echelon term refers to the supply chain hierarchy that spreads from the top upstream inventory point (e.g., a central distribution center [DC]) downstream several layers to the farthest node in the service chain (e.g., a regional warehouse or even a field service van).

It is thus a small wonder that MCA (and virtually every other optimization peer vendor) stems from the academia and its software’s concept is based on rocket science-like planning & optimization algorithms. In 2001, MCA released the first commercially available software for multi-echelon inventory planning for service parts.

As I have learned thus far from talking to the likes of MCA and Servigistics, these vendors remain quite cautious (if not outright secretive) about mentioning client’s names (especially if the client is involved in the product co-development) and about discussing their planning algorithms at a deeper level (not that many ordinary folks would understand these either, but, hey, the competition might listen in!).

Indeed, the planning and optimization models that these vendors tout can really be too overwhelming and hard to comprehend for ordinary mortals. For instance, in a single location with typical service parts, there can be deployed a few different methods of inventory planning, such as:

* Each part location is planned separately;
* With a so-called demand accommodation approach (mastered by Servigistics), which determines what parts to stock, then calculates demand satisfaction levels, to finally segment parts and locations into these different fulfillment (customer service) levels; and
* Overall optimization (arguably mastered by both MCA and Servigistics), as to achieve an overall desired service level across selected parts and locations.

Reportedly, the optimization approach can result in inventory about 30-40 percent lower than individual part location and 20 to 30 percent lower than the demand accommodation approach with much less planning and labor.

Warning: each prospective customer should check well which of these models would be the most appropriate for their business and ask the vendors to simulate real-life scenarios to them with germane data. Another warning: even then the recommended results from these packages might initially seem counterintuitive, with the rationale being difficult to explain. Nonetheless, MCA’s very first customer (I suspect it is Cisco) still successfully uses MCA SPO to manage a multi-billion dollar service parts inventory base, with 250,000 active parts across over a thousand service parts locations over several echelons.

Moreover, in some industries like aerospace & defense (A&D), stockouts are often prohibitively costly (i.e., planes are grounded due to missing critical parts), while, on the other hand, a mission-critical spare part can cost an arm-and-a-leg. There, the whopping investment in safety stocks has to be balanced rather against the risk of the part failure.

To that end, in 2003, MCA partnered with a well-known aerospace company to develop the first commercial software for planning based on service parts availability. Availability-based planning means that the system looks at the availability of all of the critical parts to support a piece of a complex equipment (installation), as opposed to independently planning for fulfillment rates of individual parts and locations.

With the same customer, MCA introduced software that managed multi-indentured and multi-echelon spare parts forecasting and planning, which was needed to support stringent “performance-based logistics (PBL)” programs that have been mandated by the US Department of Defense (DoD).

In 2004, MCA introduced risk-based tactical planning which takes a probabilistic approach to forecasting and applies it to the management and prioritization of service (work) orders. By prioritizing based on the risk of stockouts (i.e., the part’s criticality vs. its cost and the lead time to replenish it), the system ensures that supply is used optimally to meet spare parts service objectives, thus increasing service performance while making the planner more productive, too.

For more details on these principles see TEC’s earlier article titled Lucrative but ‘Risky’ Aftermarket Business—Service and Replacement Parts SCM. Also, TEC, with a courtesy of ChainLink Research, has featured Dr. Cohen’s article along similar lines entitled Service Supply Chain Strategies to Increase Corporate Profitability.

Owing to an expansion both in terms of both new geographic markets and customers, and to some deep strategic partnerships, MCA recently reported 2007 revenue growth in excess of 70 percent, and increased expansion into new verticals, including medical, capital equipment and commercial aerospace manufacturing. Boeing, Cisco, Lockheed Martin, the US Navy, Sysmex and Briggs & Stratton are just a sampling of the big-name companies currently using MCA SPO.

In additions, some successful SPO implementations have led to new service initiatives within many of these organizations in 2007, including strategic consulting engagements which enabled companies to derive even more value from their service businesses. Namely, MCA recently launched a strategic value-added consulting offering to help companies structure and understand the cost impact of their PBL and service level agreement (SLA) initiatives. Such lucrative consulting engagements entail network design and optimization, transportation analysis and full-time equivalent manpower planning.

Part II of this blog topic will analyze MCA’s most recent events and competitive situation. In the meantime, please send us your comments, opinions, etc. We would certainly be interested in your experiences with this software category (if you are an existing user) or in your general interest to evaluate these solutions as prospective customers.

What Does the “P” in PLM Really Mean?

What does the “P” in PLM really mean? The question seems ambiguous since PLM may refer to many different things (such as an airport, a university, a railway company, etc.). Okay, so let me clarify what I mean. The PLM I’m talking about here is product lifecycle management. Now, the answer seems quite simple. However, my purpose is not to trick you with this silly question, but to explore the true meaning of “product” under the PLM setting.

So, what is a product in the light of product lifecycle management?

To answer this question, I found something really helpful from the definition of product (business) on Wikipedia:

In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need. In retailing, products are called merchandise. In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.

This defines the term “product” from three different perspectives and reflects the evolution (in a reverse order) of adopting PLM methodology in business practices, which I’ll describe below.

“In manufacturing, products are purchased as raw materials and sold as finished goods.”

Undoubtedly, PLM was cradled in the manufacturing sector. From the manufacturing point of view, a product is something that has either an assembly structure, a recipe, or both. The major purposes of PLM are to help determine what raw materials are needed and how to convert these raw materials into finished goods. The added value that a manufacturer creates is associated with the physical or chemical changes from raw material to finished goods; the task of PLM is to facilitate these changes.

“In retailing, products are called merchandise.”

More recently, people started to realize the benefits of utilizing PLM outside of the manufacturing domain. The retail industry is one such example. The reason retailers have adopted PLM is because product information is a critical component when it comes to making decisions on what to buy, who to buy from, and how to sell. Some PLM vendors now provide well-tuned solutions for retailers to manage their merchandise from a life cycle standpoint.

“In marketing, a product is anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need.”

Will PLM keep expanding to other areas? It seems likely. From a marketing perspective, service is also included in a broader definition of product. A service also has a life cycle, and managing the life cycle of a service has similarities with managing the life cycle of a product—although they too have their differences. The intangible nature of services makes the development, production and delivery of services (not all kinds of services but at least a few of them) easier to take place in the digital world than those of tangible products (e.g., even surgeries can be done through the Internet now). This might provide a hint that managing services from their birth to death using PLM principles is not only advisable, but also has the potential to reach a new height that PLM has not achieved in the manufacturing sector.

Hence, the meaning of “product” within “product lifecycle management” is changing over time with the process of more industries adopting the PLM methodology. In fact, as long as you offer something that “might satisfy a want or need”, you should think about the life cycle of your offering.

So, I hope you have a better idea about what the “P” in PLM really means.

Now, I am going to throw you another question. As I write this blog, I’m facing an Acer monitor. It has a model number and a serial number. The model number represents all Acer monitors that have exactly the same product structure and specifications; the serial number specifically refers to the one monitor in front of me. Which number (the product as a model or the product as a concrete piece) should be managed within a PLM system?

This question is about the granularity of information that PLM systems deal with—and as such, affects what “product” means to a PLM system. The granularity may range from coarse to fine, including product line, product model, model variation, and individual product (serial number). Thus, the objects being managed in different PLM systems may vary.

An appropriate granularity depends on industry, regulation, company strategy, and customer requirements. In the engineer-to-order (ETO) industry, the one-of-a-kind product is designed specifically for one customer therefore the granularity will be very fine; while in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry, it is not necessary for a PLM system to manage the toothbrush that you are using.

Regulation also plays an important role in determining granularity level. Some products (such as aircrafts or medical equipment) that are subject to strict safety regulations need fine granularity in order to maintain the traceability for individual parts. In short, the coarser the granularity, the more “efficiently” you can manage the product life cycle, but there are risks of losing effectiveness due to the lack of details.

In our monitor case, I would say that managing this product at the model level in the PLM system is both efficient and effective. The serial number is also meaningful in terms of quality control and customer service. Well, this could be handled by the ERP system. After all, PLM doesn’t do everything!

The New and the Noteworthy: 2008 Vendor Wrap-up

2008 seemed to be the year for mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in the world of enterprise software—with companies like Oracle picking up Primavera Software’s project and portfolio management (PPM) offering, and Symantec grabbing up MessageLab’s messaging and web security offering. But it was also a year for some software firms to see their latest solutions shine.

With 2008 nearing its end, Technology Evaluation Center’s (TEC’s) research analyst team takes a brief look at 10 of the newest vendors to join its research roster, as well as some of the more noteworthy enterprise software solutions to hit the market this past year.

IFS
Visibility
Global Shop Solutions
Flexi
Targit
Oco
PTC
Ramco Systems
Saba
Callidus Software

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solutions – Alex Hankewicz

IFS – For over 20 years, this global software firm has provided a completely integrated modular product that covers nearly 20 industry verticals, ranging in such technically diverse industries as aerospace, energy, telecommunications, and process manufacturing (e.g., pharmaceuticals). The true genius of this system lies within the simplicity of the product’s design. The product was developed over several years of client usage and has continued to evolve.

The current seventh generation of the component-based software, IFS Applications 7, is entirely based on service-oriented component architecture (SOCA). The system has such robust features that many of the modules are being deployed as “best-of-breed” solutions in numerous customer locations. One of the ways that IFS stands out from the rest is through the use of open-source application programming interfaces (APIs), where the software modules can integrate with open source products. In conclusion, this vendor may not get the press or hype that some of its more famous competitors do, but it can stand up to—and in many instances can surpass—them, in terms of delivering fit, form, and functionality due to the product’s scalability.

Return to list

Visibility – Recently, I was given an opportunity to review two versions of this Boston, (US)-based vendor’s ERP package in both the engineer-to-order (ETO) and mixed-mode industry versions. I was pleasantly surprised that, given the breadth and scope of both the technical and highly regulated nature of the industries that use this software, the capabilities of the solution were nothing short of remarkable. After asking the vendor to demonstrate nearly 800 individual criteria, I was unable to find one instance where the software did not perform as Visibility indicated it could. The company has a significant client base in both North America and Western Europe—in particular, the United Kingdom (UK). Visibility.net is a fully integrated ERP solution, making use of the .NET framework, providing a common user interface and a single integrated platform with excellent functionality. At the end of the day, when you’re looking to acquire an ERP system that has excellent functionality, a solid base of customers, knowledgeable people that stand behind the product, and a reputation of unparalleled customer service, then I recommend Visibility as a solid vendor worthy of your consideration.

Return to list

Global Shop Solutions – This Texas, (US)-based vendor has served up ERP “Texas style”, with a robust, solid, and dependable solution. Just like the people in Texas, the system reflects a grass-roots philosophy—“build from the bottom up.” This is also reflected in its adherence to core manufacturing principles—namely, eliminating waste and redundancy. If I may say, it is reminiscent of straight-shooting Texas folk who’ve been known to say “just get on with it and get the job done.” The same no–nonsense approach is reflected in each of the vendor’s product offerings that serve the ETO, mixed-mode, and discrete manufacturing spaces. Unlike another Texan export with a global presence—and I don’t mean oil—Global Shop Solutions means what it says and says what it means. With an install base in the US, Europe, Asia, and “down under” in Australia, it offers one of the lowest total costs of ownership (TCO) in the industry. If you’re looking for a product that is feature-/function-rich and scalable, then consider Global Shop Solutions as an attractive vendor offering.

Return to list

ERP Solutions – Leslie Satenstein

Flexi – Earlier this year, I certified Flexi’s financial suite of software packages. As an IT professional with more then 20 years of application development experience, including C++ programming and providing system architecture design support to three Canadian banks and one credit union, when I read that Flexi, founded in 1991, wrote its software in C++ and that it was geared to banking, credit union, and insurance fields, my interest was piqued.

Common concerns that a banker has are the reputation of the company and the expectation of it being around for the long run. Flexi’s products are “banker approved”—and added to the fact that the software was written in C++, it matches my interests regarding technical operations.

We sometimes fail to realize that smaller banks can easily process three million transactions a day, and often it behooves a financial software application to be robust, accurate, and capable of efficiently handling batch processing of large volumes of transaction data.

What does a financial services industry expect from a family of products? Well, it should be easy to use, have built-in security with access controls, be Certified Public Accountant (CPA)-approved in the US and Certified Accountant (CA)-approved in Canada. The Flexi product has all this, and furthermore, auditors like Flexi’s “SOX-Smart” built-ins and its functionality for compliance with Financial Accounting Standards Board No. 52 (FASB52), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Financial software should also allow for easy maintenance. FlexiFinancials meets this criterion, and at the same time gives me that warm-fuzzy feeling that it is topmost in its marketplace. Certifying this suite of products was a thrill, because all the things I wanted to see in a financial services package were demonstrated and built-in. FlexiFinancials is the financial service industries “kitchen sink.”

Return to list

Business Intelligence (BI) Software – Leslie Satenstein

Targit – This experienced Danish BI vendor offers solutions for the small to medium business (SMB) marketplace. I got to know the company and its product prior to doing the certification during a pleasant chat with Ruben Knudsen and Ulrik Pedersen, both Country Managers for Targit’s U.S. and Canadian operations. I learned that in good times and bad, Targit has managed to keep its staff. This loyalty has paid off in spades, with a staff that is outstandingly knowledgeable in BI and a product that is virtually error-free. It contains all the functionality needed to compete against the big guys by offering a standard suite of applications and additionally by providing the client with a “roll-your-own” capability.

On the web site is a very large list of customers and case studies—as well as video testimonials from some of its clients. Although many of its customers are based in Europe, there are a great many from around the world, including Australia, North America, South America, and Africa. A partial list of industries or applications for which they have solutions include aerospace, human resources (HR), woodworking millwork, retail, glass manufacturing, heavy machine manufacturing, health care, petroleum, food, and more. End-user training at Targit can be done on-site or at one of its offices. I personally would enjoy taking the Tampa Florida classes in late January, early February. Golf, anyone?

Return to list

Oco – Oco is named after George O’Connor, who founded the company in 1999. Oco does not provide your typical BI online analytical processing (OLAP) software, but provides BI solutions. That said, with Oco there are no development tools for the client; the client is provided with a collection of approximately 120 solutions, covering all the major and secondary areas that are of interest to any company that has ERP software.

I had pleasant discussions with Jacques Hebert, Oco’s business analyst, and Kristin Hambelton, from Oco’s sales and marketing department, about the company history and why they took that “canned” solution approach. They felt that the biggest drawback to SMBs new to BI was the heavy upfront costs of getting started, and the support licensing fees. Oco’s approach was to provide a system with reports, dashboards, graphics, drill-down capability, maps, and import and export tools as an on-demand BI solution. Typically, the vendor’s software-as-a-service (SaaS) offering allows the client to be up and running in less than twelve weeks. In fact, unless there is some exception, it offers to implement a new system for a client in less then twelve weeks and at a fixed cost.

From Oco’s experience, most organizations set up to handle their most pressing BI needs. If these are already in the “canned” assortment of applications that are provided by Oco, then the implementation times will be dramatically cut. Of the software that Oco provides, all headings, field titles, etc, are software lookups, not hard-coded into the program(s) so that one program serves many customers. All the offerings are supported from one single image system. This means that any tweaking, enhancing, or bug fixing is done on the server, and gets implemented for all.

Oco’s most satisfied customer is Welsh’s, producer and distributor of grape juice and other products. Welsh’s obtained a full return on investment (ROI) within the first month following “go live.”

Oco BI solutions are experiencing great acceptance in the SMB marketplace, due to the guaranteed fixed-cost implementation fee.

Return to list

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) – Kurt (Yu) Chen

Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) – Founded in 1985 and headquartered in Needham, Massachusetts (US), PTC develops, markets, and supports PLM software solutions and related services that help manufacturers improve the competitiveness of their products and product development processes.

PTC offers a suite of mechanical computer-aided design (CAD) tools and a range of web-based collaboration technologies, enable manufacturing companies to create virtual computer-based products (digital products), collaborate on designs within the enterprise and throughout the extended supply chain, and control the digital product information throughout the product lifecycle.

The year 2008 saw some really good news from PTC. By achieving 14 percent GAAP year-over-year revenue growth, PTC passed the $1 billion (USD) mark for fiscal year 2008 (FY08). In July 2008, the company was selected by EADS (a global leader in aerospace, defense, and related services) to harmonize enterprise PLM solutions across all EADS business divisions as part of that company’s PHENIX initiative. This was probably the biggest contract in PTC history.

Looking ahead to the year 2009, I would expect PTC to keep growing both organically and by acquisitions. The recent small acquisition of Synapsis Technology shows the company’s intent in green product design and environmental regulatory compliance solutions. In 2009, SMBs may expect more offerings from PTC. Besides these, expansions in computer-aided engineering (CAE) and publishing are likely to take place.

Return to list

Human Resource Management Systems (HRMS) - Sherry Fox

Ramco Systems – Many of the HR issues that businesses face today are common points of interest for HR (and related software) vendors. As such, software products are designed to address these issues by helping organizations properly manage new talent recruitment, employee productivity tracking, workforce or succession planning and modeling, and baby boomer retirements. While other companies like Ramco have a similar aim, Ramco’s solution has an added feature that most HR solution providers are just beginning to get a handle on—analytics.

This past October, I had the opportunity to certify Ramco’s Enterprise Series human capital management (HCM) solution. In order to be “TEC Certified,” vendors have to meet specific and stringent requirements set forth by our analysts. Overall, the certification with Ramco went very well. There wasn’t one aspect of HCM that it did not know about or demonstrate to us through its solution.

During the certification, 200 criteria/functionalities were validated. I found that the menus were well organized, with common functionalities grouped together. Horizontal scrolling was used when an entry required more data than what a line could contain. Data screens were user-friendly and easily searchable, and their general layout was very clean and uncluttered—making them easy to read.

As a global provider of enterprise software and services since 1989, Ramco has delivered its solutions to customers in 35 countries worldwide. Its HCM practice, while relatively new, tackles old challenges, including analytics, by focusing on strategic workforce management issues that to date have not been supported well with technology or analytics in the HCM space.

Ramco’s HCM solution provides unique technology and analytics platforms, and predictive tools that help with employee retention and productivity. Together, these capabilities provide the ability for organizations to have the right data and tools at the right time. In my opinion, Ramco’s Enterprise Series HCM solution passed TEC’s certification with flying colors.

Return to list

Learning Management Systems (LMS) – Sherry Fox

Saba – Since 1997, Saba has been a global provider of strategic people management solutions and services. Saba’s products are used by over 1,300 organizations and over 17 million users worldwide. Its unified solutions provide HCM solutions that cover learning, collaboration, performance, compensation, and talent management.
This past summer, my colleague and I were fortunate enough to have Saba’s director of product marketing speak with us to demonstrate Saba’s suite of enterprise software offerings—including its learning suite. During our discussion, we received an overview of the company, as well as a look at its unique strategies for training clients on how to use its software.

When Saba clients purchase one of Saba’s products, they receive the regular user training offered by most software vendors. Saba, however, goes one step further by offering its clients the ability to enroll in Saba University’s learning programs. These learning programs are geared towards clients, new users, experienced users looking for additional training, project managers, and business owners. I think it says a lot about a company when it’s willing to go that extra mile for its clients and users; and just imagine how empowered they must be after completing their training.

Saba’s learning suite itself has a very rich set of functionalities and is very user-friendly. From what I saw during the product demo, learning how to use the software would be relatively easily—given its layout and menu structure. However, by getting first-hand training through Saba University’s unique learning program, attendees can leave the course with the assurance that they have the skills necessary to use the software application to its full potential. Saba—in my opinion—gets an “A” (for awesome).

Return to list

Enterprise Incentive Management (EIM) – Sherry Fox

Callidus Software – Callidus Software was founded in San Jose, California (US) in 1996. It provides service to more than 180 companies—including those in industries such as banking, pharmaceuticals, telecom, and insurance—and to over 1.9 million salespeople worldwide.

In 2002, Callidus released its TrueComp 2.0 sales performance management (SPM) solution, which was aimed at addressing the many challenges faced by compensation administrators around the world—including the management of quotas and territories. Since its inception in 2002, TrueComp has gone through several releases. Its latest version is TrueComp 5.2.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of speaking with Jock Breitwieser, Callidus’ director of public and analyst relations. After seeing TrueComp up close and personal, I was truly impressed by its capabilities—and truly blown away by its graphics. Its robust sales performance and incentive optimization functionality includes analytics, quota management, and territory optimization. Such functionality enables users to project the impact of new compensation rules using side-by-side comparisons.

Essentially, TrueComp allows compensation managers the ability to create business rules and calculate payments. And with its ability to automatically calculate compensation benefits, the solution can help minimize management costs and eliminate the possibility of overpayments. It’s is robust enough to manage the most complex compensation plans, but it’s also simple enough to administer without having to heavily rely on the IT department. TrueComp is available through SaaS delivery and can be easily integrated with key sales systems.

While Callidus is currently providing software and services to larger enterprises, one of its goals for 2009 is to expand into the mid market and small to medium enterprises (SMEs).

One last service that I just have to mention is Callidus’ TrueConnect Customer Community. This is an online community forum, where people can meet to exchange their expertise, ideas, and give advice. There are currently 240 members from 21 different countries using TrueConnect (which, incidentally, represents approximately 46 percent of Callidus’ customer base). It’s a great way to keep clients connected and ultimately helps Callidus improve upon what they are already pretty darn good at—EIM.

The Power of Knowledge — Knowledge is Power (Part 2)

Part 1 of this blog series introduced the need for knowledge management (KM) software applications as part of a more comprehensive and strategic service management (SSM) suite. One such broad SSM suite has been offered by Servigistics.

Servigistics’ Service Knowledge Management (SKM) solution, the newest module within Servigistics SSM, is designed to meet the requirements of the technical service organizations that manage complex problem resolution. The crucial issue is that technicians, dealers, agents, partners, and customers need in-depth knowledge to solve complex problems.

Diagnosing issues in these complex environments (e.g., motor vehicles, aerospace & defense [A&D], medical equipment, appliances/white goods, high tech) requires interaction and a comprehensive understanding of the essential diagnostic variables. As a good example, medical doctors have been provided with a framework that allows them to be masters of the diagnostic method because of their years of diagnostic training. As a trained diagnostician, the doctor is able to capture the essential diagnostic information from the patient and match it against prior treatment experiences.

However, in the world of technical support services, a formal diagnostic framework does not usually exist, since technicians and support personnel do not commonly receive standardized training in how to diagnose a technical problem. The SKM solution’s role is thus to help in the field as newer technicians will be less experienced while the experienced ones are about to retire in droves. In addition, loyalty has been down lately so future technicians will likely not obtain that same experiential knowledge. Moreover, fewer people are going into field service these days.

So, What Can We Do?

One solution is to leverage (collect, retain, and reuse) documents, experience, and expertise within a knowledge repository (base), with powerful retrieval methods (search algorithms) to provide information and resolutions via streamlined access to this stored experience. To that end (which is much easier said than done), Servigistics’ approach enables a single repository to serve as a knowledge store and as a source for interactions through many channels (Web, call center agent, and wireless) and in multiple languages simultaneously.

The SKM’s Knowledge Advisor (described later) can be set up to provide a way for the knowledge base to be queried in many languages. By translating the words in the domain model, this would allow a user to type in his or her searches in one of the languages and he or she would be walked through the same guided-search process. Although not all of the solutions might be translated into the user’s language of choice, Servigistics’ analysis has shown that the most critical factor is that the users be able to search for the “right” answer in their native language.

The SKM solution combines interactive diagnostics with so-called Text2Data processing to gather information along with Knowledge Studio and Knowledge Advisor in a single application. The retrieval engine has been provided by Kaidara in an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) fashion.

Assembling and maintaining a KM solution relies upon the service organization’s ability to manage relevant content and tag the content in a way that the target user base can find it when needed. In this regard, Servigistics has broken deployment of the system into the following four distinct steps, with appropriate products to address these specific areas:

1. Gathering History — Most KM deployments fail due to lack of content and lack of a defined process to author and populate the knowledge base. SKM is able to analyze and capture accurate and succinct problem-resolution pairs from disparate historical files to pre-populate and jump-start a problem resolution project.

Volumes of product data and information are generally plentiful in both structured data (database rows, fields, tables, etc.) and unstructured content (forms, documents, pictures, etc). Nonetheless, this data and content is not useful for reuse until it is normalized, validated, and tagged for retrieval.

The aforementioned Text2Data capability provides an automated means to gather, analyze, and categorize text documents or database records and transform them into a usable form. Text2Data processes a set of input records that generate output that describes each of the records. The input records are generally a set of text documents that are relevant to the target knowledge domain or a database table containing rows of information, such as call records, service requests, trouble tickets, and service bulletins.

This means that materials in various formats (i.e., structured and unstructured) can be incorporated into the system, thus adding value to content and future searches. The results from Text2Data processing identify important concepts within the data and converge upon a normalized set of solutions.

This convergence of product data into solutions provides a solid “starter” set of content and may be run iteratively throughout the SKM lifecycle to provide additional content. In other words, the system has a “self-learning” capability (i.e., to create new resolution cases based on history of symptoms, questions, solutions, etc.).

2. Organizing Knowledge — The abovementioned Knowledge Studio module creates a structured representation of content and maps the content to a standard vocabulary, which is commonly referred to as a domain model. The domain model is an abstract image of the application area in which the system operates, and it provides the vocabulary by which objects, states, actions, and relations can be described. It offers a structured representation of the attributes, their types, and the values that can be used to represent information pertinent to the domain.

Knowledge Studio provides the basis for representing, accessing, and handling information, in order to drive the interactive diagnostics. Since all representation schemes are based on the domain model, consistency is always ensured.

The Studio enables administrators and authors to efficiently tag solutions and add new metadata to the model (via translation, synonyms, acronyms, attribute tagging, etc.). Moreover, the domain model approach eliminates the need for any static (hard-coded) decision-tree maintenance, so all of the interactive diagnostics are dynamically automated from the domain model itself.

3. Distributing Knowledge — The cornerstone of the SKM offering and the means to realize the full potential of interactive diagnostics is called Servigistics Knowledge Advisor. The solution functions much like emulating the most experienced technical support agent’s thought process in dealing with customer problems. The Advisor interacts with the user in a natural language and flexible manner, similar to that of skilled technicians.

The goal of Knowledge Advisor is to help the user find the “right solution” to his or her specific problem, from anywhere (via intranet or Internet) in the shortest possible time with the greatest possible accuracy. The user does not want to receive a “no solution found” notice, nor does he or she conversely want to be told that there are “150 possible solutions to your problem.”

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Within the flexibility theme, SKM offers multiple search interfaces dependent upon the users’ experience (novice vs. advanced) and the context of what problem they are looking to solve. Critical to the success or failure of any system is the “look and feel” of the user interface (UI).

The approach adopted by Servigistics is to provide a flexible UI design framework that can accommodate the specific requirements of any user level. The tools to modify the system’s interface are delivered with the system, including a comprehensive set of instructions. The modes of user interaction with the system are as follows:

* In a Guided Search mode, users can describe their problems in their own words and Knowledge Advisor dynamically generates the most relevant questions to quickly address the problem at hand. Through this process, the user is walked through a natural question and answer (Q&A) dialogue to results. Even if a user is not able to answer a question from the Advisor, he or she can skip it and the Advisor will simply narrow the results by asking a different question. This approach is fully automated and requires no pre-programming to execute;
* In a Text Search mode, regardless of how a problem or question is stated in Knowledge Advisor, the system reads every word input and has the intelligence to understand the context of the words (i.e., it can account for the use of synonyms, acronyms, abbreviations, misspellings and lexical patterns). For example, words that are searched can include the “exact” word matches or perhaps if a user enters a code number, Knowledge Advisor would be able to detect if the code entry matches, e.g., the pattern of a product model number or an error code pattern; and
* Finally, if an experienced Knowledge Advisor agent uses the system, he or she can bypass the Guided Search and drill down through the system to quickly find the “right” solution with Expert Search. This search method directly exposes the metadata of the domain model, allowing the user to query the specific metadata areas directly and even change the weight of the areas.

4. Maintaining Knowledge — While building the knowledge base is the starting block for the SKM system’s instance, maintaining the content relevancy and verifying data tagging are the keys to the long-term viability of the system. To that end, Servigistics includes within the SKM system a set of tools and features to ensure that the knowledge stored in the system is not only easily imported but is also accurate and relevant to solving intricate technical issues.

The Knowledge Advisor module provides a means for authors, knowledge administrators, and subject matter experts to add or edit existing problem resolutions in the knowledge base. The authoring tools are designed to safeguard entry of duplicate solutions, and may be set for access and/or editing per role.

Furthermore, through Knowledge Studio, the administrator may set up workflows for authors to use in Knowledge Advisor. For example, when an author enters a new solution, the system may require a review and authorization process by several “subject matter experts”, whose role is to ensure that the information entered into the knowledge base is accurate, complete, and up-to-date with the latest support practices being used.

In some cases the reviewers might include product managers, marketing managers, or regulatory and legal personnel. The workflow process ensures that each solution is reviewed automatically, approved in a timely fashion and each step of the process is time- and date-stamped with version control.

Last but not least, the structured approach to knowledge provides advanced reporting and analytic capabilities, since the Servigistics Knowledge Analytics module has tools that report on supply/demand for both metadata and content (that can be segmented on the data’s structure). These capabilities provide administrators with decision support for maintaining retrievable and relevant content.

Knowledge Analytics generates reports that reflect how people are using the system, what types of searches they are making, and captures feedback on the user’s impressions and rating their success using the system. For example, a “gap” analysis report would identify “holes” in the product coverage of possible solutions. The Analytics module also provides administrators with reporting views to create custom reports on user, content, tagging, or session data.

Any Potential Benefits from These Whizbang Thingies?

As mentioned in Part 1, some Servigistics case studies have proven that SKM can reduce troubleshooting time by solving issues once and making the resolutions available across the service organization. It is sort of like a collective unconscious aligning everyone in the service operation.

In addition, the solution can decrease the number of service calls by empowering customers, technicians, partners, and dealers to more reliably and accurately find their solutions through self-service. Furthermore, it can improve product reliability by identifying and tracking quality issues (e.g., the number of uses per solution).

For example, a France-based home appliance manufacturer found that in less than six months, SKM improved first call resolution from less than 20 percent to over 50 percent. In addition, Level 1 agent training was reportedly reduced from eight weeks to four weeks, while operating costs were cut by five percent.

For global companies preparing for the loss of valuable workers due to retirement, it should be encouraging to know that their collective knowledge and experience won’t be lost. Instead, this know-how can be collected, automated and accessed by everyone in the service operation.

In other words, in operations that face the potential loss of intellectual capital through retirement, the SKM can reduce service employee ramp-up time by providing a diagnosis framework. So, instead of viewing this upcoming workforce transition as a problem, best-in-class companies can use it as an opportunity to manage service as a profit center rather than a cost of doing business.

One Year Later at Deltek: More of the Same (And Then Some More) – Part III

Part I of this blog series explained Deltek’s ebullience despite a hostile and depressed environment, and also analyzed the recent developments (and anticipated future developments) at Deltek’s Professional Service line of business, which is largely represented by Deltek Vision [evaluate this product]. Part II then analyzed the recent developments (and anticipated future developments) at Deltek’s Government Contractors (GovCon) line of business, which is represented by Deltek Costpoint [evaluate this product] and Deltek GCS Premier [evaluate this product].

This final part will focus on Deltek’s Enterprise Project Management (EPM) line of business, which helps companies deal with the ever-growing reporting regulations being imposed by government agencies.

The Deltek EPM product portfolio [evaluate these products] offers the following three primary disciplines of program controls for government contractors:

1. Planning & Scheduling via Deltek Open Plan;
2. Cost and earned value management (EVM) via Deltek Cobra and Deltek MPM (to be explained soon); and
3. Risk Management via Deltek WelcomRisk.

To be fair, estimating is another key program management disciplne, which Deltek does via third-party solutions. Regarding estimating partners for EPM, Deltek works with several vendors, including Galorath, ProPricer, and PRICE Systems. Users can basically import comma-separated values (CSV) files from those estimating systems into Deltek Cobra. While Deltek works with all of the above-mentioned estimating vendors, it doesn’t yet have formalized partnerships with any of them, and doesn’t turn to one more than any other.

The “See Problems Before They Do,” “Share Program Information,” and “Trust the Data” Themes

As Deltek has built its EPM business and listened to its customers’ top priorities, it has focused its attention on building a technology roadmap that delivers features such as early warning indicators, automated reporting, “anywhere, anytime” access via the Web, and process controls to build consistency within the organization. The vendor continues to invest in EPM, and one recent highlight would be Deltek wInsight 6.4, the tool for EVM reporting and collaboration, which was released in late May, 2008.

The release included enhancements such as early warning indicators that provide a proactive view of project performance to avoid costly budget and schedule overruns. In addition, wInsight 6.4 added two new “trip wire” metrics for the United States (US) Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD): the Baseline Execution Index (BEI) and the Critical Path Length Index (CPLI). These indices are used to measure and forecast programs’ progress and are utilized by the US Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) for compliance audits.

The product also included faster US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Part 300 reporting capabilities and simplified data integration. The latter was enabled via a United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) Extensible Markup Language (XML) data interchange to communicate EVM data to clients more easily.

Acquisition Further Bolsters EVM Leadership

As the second major move in the EPM space, in September 2008 Deltek announced the acquisition of MPM, Planview’s former EVM solution. Deltek received both software and key employees with this acquisition.

Prior to this acquisition, the two dominant EVM applications in the market were Planview MPM and Deltek Cobra. Now, Deltek becomes the industry-standard solution in the marketplace for EVM, since acquiring MPM effectively allowed the vendor to corner this market niche. This acquisition indeed extends Deltek’s leadership position as the largest and most comprehensive EVM provider.

Deltek MPM is an EVM application widely used by government contractors and agencies, including 8 of the top 10 aerospace and defense (A&D) contractors, to meet the complex compliance requirements of the US Federal Government. The solution competes directly with Artemis CostView and Dekker, and is used primarily by government contractors to comply with the ANSI 748-98A standards for earned value reporting.

Accordingly, MPM takes initial program budgets to an integrated baseline review (IBR) and then allows users to monitor and report on program performance. MPM produces 48 standard (”canned”) reports required by the government such as contract performance format (CPR): Format 1-4 and NASA Form 533: Monthly Contractor Financial Management Report. On a high level, the product’s key capabilities are the following: program overview and initial setup, work breakdown structure (WBS), estimating, what-if analysis, planning & status reviewing, graphic drill-down, Microsoft Project integration, and reporting capabilities in terms of sample reports.

Why This Acquisition?

I think Deltek made the MPM acquisition for two reasons. For one, as mentioned earlier on, the purchase solidifies Deltek’s standing as the leading EVM vendor in the world. These numbers are only estimates, but it is my belief that MPM and Cobra’s combined install base gives Deltek about 70 percent of the market share for EVM applications.

MPM’s former parent Planview is focused on the information information technology (IT) governance side of the project portfolio management (PPM) market and felt that selling its EVM solution to Deltek would re-focus the company on what it is good at, and gives it additional resources to focus on the strategy. For Deltek, the vendor gets a solution that fits into its EVM product set, which was the second reason it made this move.

Namely, MPM gives Deltek an EVM solution that complements the overall EPM portfolio. MPM is a great fit for organizations that have decentralized EVM processes where EVM is managed on individual programs.

It is a desktop application that is relatively easy to use, intuitive, quick to implement, and requires few IT resources. In that sense, while it will be sold to and used by the largest companies in the world (Northrop Grumman Corporation and Raytheon Company are MPM customers), it is an ideal fit for small to midsize government contractors that want to get up and running on EVM quickly.

The application is capable of handling only one project at a time (although it can store multiple projects). For instance, WBS can only be done on a project-by-project basis, since there is no concept for centralized enterprise project structure (EPS). There is a summary level WBS with roll-up assignments of WBS to owners (or contract account managers [CAMs]). The product also does not offer some critical reports such as the Functional Cost Hour Report (DD Form 1921-1 Part 1) and OMB 300.

Thus, MPM is not focused on enterprise-level deals due to lack of enterprise functionality, and this is where Cobra plays. Deltek Cobra, though it is also used by small companies, is a great solution for organizations that manage EVM on a centralized enterprise-basis, and these tend to be larger firms. For companies like Lockheed Martin that have centralized EVM functions, the scalability and “roll-up” capabilities of Cobra make it a better solution than MPM for centralized EVM management.

Since MPM has been used by hundreds of customers, and it is a tight fit for small to medium sized government contractors that need to implement EVM on a program-by-program basis, Deltek will not be sun-setting the product and will continue to support/sell MPM to customers. As the vendor assesses the EVM needs of its customers and prospects, it will sell Cobra or MPM depending on how EVM is managed inside relevant customer organizations.

Due to MPM’s architecture, it is not difficult to push/pull data to and from the application. In that sense, EVM data can be transferred between MPM and GCS Premier, Costpoint, and Vision. However, Deltek is exploring deeper integration plans and will reveal those to the market as they are developed.

What Might the Future Bring?

For the future, Deltek’s ambitious goal within the EPM suite is to unify all the various applications it owns on one common technology. Since a few years ago, when it first acquired a number of functional point solutions from multiple sources on various technologies (and with little to no integration at all), Deltek has made great strides in this area. But the vendor wants to eventually offer an Integrated Program Management framework from a single vendor, on a single technology, and with a strong application integration framework to interact with any outside systems, not just to Deltek’s (where it is already integrated today).

Deltek is well down this path already, although serious work remains. For example, Deltek Cobra’s upcoming release, as an EVM solution targeted to large government contractors (that need to standardize on EVM practices across multiple programs within their complex organizations), will likely feature Microsoft .NET Framework-based more scalable architecture.

The upcoming CAM dashboard would be another exciting innovation, since on major programs, CAMs act as specialists for specific components of that program. But at this stage, I am only at liberty to hint that this functionality should greatly enhance (dare I say revolutionize?) the way A&D firms manage program performance. In the meantime, we will have to stay tuned for more product’s details and the official availability announcement by Deltek.