CTRM Vendor Perceptions Report

RESEARCH AND REPORT

CTRM Vendor Perceptions June 2014

Platinum Research Sponsors

Gold Research Sponsor

Commodity Technology Advisory LLC Sugar Land TX and Prague CZ ComTechAdvisory.com

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.













2014 ETRM / CTRM Vendor Perception Study

Commodity Technology Advisory llc















Contents Why do perceptions matter?

...............................................................................................................................................................4

CTRM Executives Respond to Report Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5 Allegro OpenLink

...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction & Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Research Demographics ................................................................................................................................................................6 Market Awareness .............................................................................................................................................................................9 Experience with Vendors ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Market Leadership Perceptions ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Overall CTRM/ETRM Market Leader ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Overall Energy Commodities................................................................................................................................................... 11 Electric Power Trading ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Natural Gas Trading ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Oil and Oil Products Trading ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Coal Trading............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Ags and Softs Trading ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Cotton, Coffee, Cocoa and Sugar Trading ............................................................................................................................... 13 Grains Trading ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Edible Oils ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Base Metals Trading ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Precious Metals Trading .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Metals Recyclables Trading ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Shipping and Freight Trading .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Cloud Delivery......................................................................................................................................................................... Delivery.........................................................................................................................................................................

15

Overall Technical Architecture ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Summary of Leadership Perception Results ............................................................................................................................ 16 Critical Attributes in ETRM / CTRM Software ......................... .................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .................. ....... 17 Trends and Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Installed Base and Geographic Differences................................ ............................................ ....................... ...................... .................... ..................... ....................... ...................... ....................... ..................... .........18 Market Maturity .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Focus on Consultants and Integrators .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Trends ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 About Allegro .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 About OpenLink .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27















Why do perceptions matter? This 2014 CTRM Vendor Perception Study has been developed to provide insights into how the users, buying decision makers, and consultants that make-up the CTRM marketplace perceive the landscape of companies that produce and sell CTRM/ETRM products. But, why is this important? Vendors spend significant sums creating brands and trying to familiarize potential buyers with their products and capabilities; and via that process, work to establish a positive reputation in the market. Buyers will use their familiarity and perceptions of those vendors when making decisions as to which vendors and products to include in a purchasing process. Past research by the authors of this report indicate that buyers will initially use two sources of information when considering which system to purchase: 1) their personal knowledge and experiences of having previously worked with a vendor or software package, and 2) the knowledge, experiences and opinions of their peers in their industry. Potential buyers who limit their search to those companies that they or their peers know are seeing only a relatively small circle in the scheme of things. Depending on where a prospective buyer sits in the commodities market, there may be as many as 15 or 20 potential solutions that could meet their needs and many of those will be missed if one simply relies on friends or acquaintances to name them. Further, this method of identify ing potential vendors simply reinforces the standing of the companies that have been the most most successful over time. It doesn’t allow room for smaller companies companies or start-ups to have an equal footing in the purchase decision process, potentially never getting an “at bat” as the market just doesn’t have the same history and familiarity with them as they do with the market leaders. So, it’s important that buyers become familiar with all the potential vendors if they wish to find a solution that best fits their needs. It’s equally important that vendors help those market market participants become familiar with them by investing in marketing and sales - establishing themselves in the market as a company that should be considered for every opportunity that falls within the functional and geographic scope of their products. With that being said, this research is intended to address a number of objectives. First, it does provide those that are contemplating purchasing a new system, the views of a wider peer group group from which to get feedback. Second, it provides vendors a measure – a report card if you will - to determine their success in establishing and/or maintaining market awareness and perceptions of leadership; or for the smaller and start-up companies, a gauge of how well they’ve done in establishing themselves as players in the game. Beyond measuring familiarity and perceptions of leadership in specific categories of commodities, we have used this research opportunity to look at a number of other factors that influence perceptions of leadership and impact user experiences, including identifying what buyers look for when selecting a system, determining how happy users are with their installed systems and measuring how many systems those users have installed to manage their business. The answers to these questions give us a snapshot of the maturity of the software category, how active it is, how well the solutions meet the requirements and much more. By virtue of the fact that ComTech Advisory’s predecessor organization – CommodityPoint – had performed a vendor perception study more or less annually for almost a decade, we also have a historical per spective on how brands have















CTRM Executives Respond to Report Findings Allegro

Introduction & Demographics

http://youtu.be/FYmGqoMJk7k

Mr. Ray Hood, President and CEO, Allegro Development Mr. Hood discusses the results of the 2014 CTRM Vendor Perception Study. Additionally, he reviews his company’s market position and future plans as Allegro Allegro continues to grow and expand their reach global across commodities. commodities.

OpenLink

http://youtu.be/oFtUaY2yd_4

Mr. Doug Wendler, MD of Americas Energy, OpenLink Mr. Wendler discusses the results of the 2014 CTRM Vendor Perception Study. He also reviews his co mpany’ market positio

Commodity Technology Advisory’s (ComTech) vendor perception study was conducted to establish end-user perceptions of the E/CTRM vendors and products and to determine market leadership perceptions as well as buying criteria, demand levels, and brand awareness of the different vendors. The research comprised of a comprehensive set of questions that end users and others were invited to answer as an internet survey using the Survey Monkey TM online survey tool. tool. The survey was open for th responses between January 24 and March 20 th, 2014 and collected some 234 responses. The survey was promoted in numerous ways in order to attract bone fide respondents. fide respondents. ComTech used email notification, blog articles, banner advertising and verbal requests to encourage responses. ComTech used a number of email lists and personal contacts to promote the survey. E/CTRM vendors and service providers promoted the survey of their own accord. ComTech also used an incentive to gain responses with every fifth valid respondent being provided with a small Amazon.com gift certificate as well as the promise of a copy of the final report. The number of responses gained represents a strong response but ComTech were rigorous in validating these responses and in the end, utilized 146 (62%) of them in the results presented below. Reasons for rejecting responses included: 1. The respond respondent ent worked for a vendor. vendor. Despite Despite instruc instructions tions to discourage vendor employee responses, ComTech















2. Incomplete Incomplete responses responses were were also also eliminated eliminated where where the respondent had answered less than 50% of the questions. There were 64 incomplete responses eliminated, 3. Duplica Duplicate te respon responses ses were were also elimina eliminated. ted. There There were were two duplicate responses, 4. Finally, suspicious suspicious responses responses were eliminated. eliminated. These included those with fictitious email addresses, names or company names or those lacking such data. Some 9 suspicious responses were eliminated. The results presented and discussed in this report were obtained only using the 146 responses that we deemed to be valid and usable. Vendor perceptions are interesting both in terms of how well a vendor is known in the market and as to how it is viewed by those that are aware of it and its products. However, vendor perceptions invariably lag current reality basically representing what a vendor did or was to the end user in the past. This means that it is equally important to look at trends in vendor perception through time. ComTech has done this by utilizing similar historical data collected and discussed by CommodityPoint over the last decade or so and this trend data is i s also discussed below. As perceptions lag, this report should be viewed as representing vendor perceptions prior to 2014 and anyone looking for an ETRM or CTRM software solution is strongly advised to research the market effectively as things can and do change very rapidly in this software category.

Research Demographics We received a total of 234 responses to our survey; however, we eliminated 87 of those responses that were provided by vendor personnel, were incomplete, or were otherwise otherwise suspicious. After this reduction, we were left with 146 valid responses (Figure 1).

Figur e 1: Respondent Respondent Locati ons 1% 7%

53%

39%

0%

The respondent’s locations reflected a very fair distribution of experienced CTRM software users, with the majority of the responses coming from North America (53%), followed by Europe
















remaining company segments comprised less than 10% each. (Figure 2).

Figur e 2: Respondent Respondent Compan y Types Oil&Gas Exploration Mining/Metal Producer Hedge Fund/Investment… Industrial Commodity… Agricultural… Chemical/Petrochemical/R… Merchant/Trader/Broker Consultant/Systems… Utility/Generator 0%


1 0% 0% 2 0% 0% 30 % 4 0% 0% 5 0% 0%

Figur e 3: Types Types of Comm Comm odi t ies Traded

It should be noted, however, that many of the respondents did indicate that their company spanned multiple industry ind ustry classes and that many of the companies identified as traders and refiners could also be representative of the oil and gas exploration/production markets. markets. That being said, said, based upon ComTech research, it does appear that the oil and gas companies are under-represented in our data. Note: Responses from Consultants/Systems Integrators were not solicited nor considered for inclusion in questions relating to software systems in current use, commodities traded, or satisfaction with current software solution in use.

All Commodities Emission Credits Freight Rates Base Metals Precious Metals Ags/Softs Energy 0% SAM SAM

NAM NAM

5%

10 %

Midd Middle le East East

15 %

Euro Europe pe

2 0%

Asia Asia-P -Pac acif ific ic

Figure 4: Primar y Comm Comm odit ies Traded All Commodities Emission Credits Freight Rates Base Metals Precious Metals Ags/Softs Energy 0% Asia Asia-P -Pac acif ific ic

Euro Europe pe

20 % Midd Middle le East East

40 % NAM NAM

6 0% SAM SAM

When looking at the commodities commoditi es traded by our respondents (Figure 3), it is somewhat surprising at first glance to see the most cited traded commodity is emission credits; however, considering the single largest respondent group to our survey is the Utility/Generator segment, it should not be all that surprising, particularly given that more than 90% of those are located in Europe and North America, region with established emissions programs. In addition to emissions, we do see a good distribution of commodity types traded by our respondent group, with all commodities represented in almost all geographic regions. When asked to identify the primary commodities traded, we do see what would be a more normal distribution - one that is more reflective of the current markets and installed base for CTRM solutions. Energy was clearly the the most commonly traded single















about 5% of the respondents. The responses associated with the various vendors are not necessarily reflective of the installed base of those vendors. In these results, results, Allegro would appear to be over-represented in terms of response rates within their client base, with others, such as OpenLink and Triple Point, being under-represented.

Figur e 6: Cur Cur rent System (s) in Use Allegro Excel In House SunGard None OpenLink Triple Point Generation 10 Brady DBC Smartsoft

16% of the respondents indicated they were using Excel spreadsheets for some or all of their ETRM / CTRM requirements. A further 11% indicate that they are using some form of in-house developed system. 8% of the respondents, companies companies who may trade commodities as a non-core part of their wider businesses are not utilizing any type of dedicated ETRM/CTRM solution.

OATI Zainet SolArc Abacus Ventyx IRM Trayport Contigo ComFin Amphora PCI Calvus Solutions Ascend Analytics Lacima Siemens eOpt Vedaris Pricehub Navita VuePoint Utilisoft SAP 0% Asia Asia-P -Pac acif ific ic

5%

Euro Europe pe

10 %

15 %


20% NAM NAM

25 % SAM SAM

When asked how satisfied they were we re with their current solution(s), Figure 7, almost 90% of the respondents indicated some level of Figure 7: How satisfied are you wit h your satisfaction, with current current solution? 19% saying they 1% 2% 9% were very satisfied, 50% satisfied and 19% 50% 19% somewhat satisfied. Only 9% 19% indicated they were dissatisfied with Satisfied Somewhat Satisfie d Very Satisfied Dissatisfied their current No response Don't Know product(s).















Market Awareness

Figure 8: Known Known V endors endors - Total

We asked our respondents to identify all the vendors of CTRM software of which they were aware (Figure 8). Both Allegro and OpenLink were identified most often, with about abo ut 63% of the respondents naming naming the two companies. SunGard and Triple Point were also commonly cited, each being named by more than 50% of the respondents. Below those four, the recognition of CTRM vendors drops off dramatically, with no other vendors being named by more than 20% of the group, and only Brady (19%), Murex (16%) and EKA (13%) were cited by more than 10% of the respondents.

Allegro OpenLink SunGard Triple Point Brady Murex EKA Contigo Amphora OATI SolArc Ventyx Aspect Enterprise None SAP Generation 10 Abacus Pioneer Lacima Navita TradePaq Enuit SAS Trayport Agiboo iRisk DBC Smartsoft Entero Quorum Woodlands Sakonnet Delta JustCommodity ComFin

In all, our respondents’ noted 76 different vendors and/or products, though it could be argued that several of those which were cited would not be accurately described as CTRM suppliers. In calculating this result, we did not combine named products, or vendors which had been previously acquired by other vendors, under the vendor of those products, meaning that Solarc or DBC Smartsoft were not combined with OpenLink.

0%

20%

40%

60%

Figure 9: How closely do you follow the E/ CTRM TRM M arket ?

Don’t follow

80%

It should be noted that when asked about their knowledge know ledge of the current market for ETRM or CTRM products (Figure 9), most of our respondents noted that they rarely follow the market, with more than a third saying they only research current vendors or offerings when they are seeking seeking to buy a new solution. This lack of ongoing examination of the market would explain the inclusion of vendors that have either been acquired by others (Solarc) or others that have left the market for other reasons (Sakonnet). The lack of regular or constant examination would also point to















Experience with Vendors

Figure 10: Which ve vendors/ ndors/ products have you ut ili zed zed previously?

When asked what CTRM vendor or products our respondents had previously used, Allegro (43%) was most noted, with OpenLink Endur, Triple Point and SunGard also being commonly mentioned. Beyond those Figure 11: Of t he products you've vendors cited in Figure 10, uti lized previously, w hich one wer e an additional 38 other you most satisfied satisfied wit h? vendors were also noted, Allegro each with only one or two OpenLink SunGard citations each.

Allegro OpenLink Endur Triple Point SunGard OpenLink Right Angle Zainet Brady OATI Nucleus None Amphora Navita

SolArc

Generation 10 Contigo EnTrader Vedaris EKA DBC Smartsoft SunGard Altra Murex Sakonnet Xenon IRM iOPT 0%

10%


Eur Europe ope

NAM

SAM

20 %

30 %


When asked which one system of those they had used, they were most satisfied with (Figure 11), Allegro was cited by 48 of the respondents, followed by OpenLink OpenLink (20) and SunGard (11). In all 34 vendors were noted by the group, with 21 of those being cited only once (Figure 11).

Generation 10 Contigo Brady Triple Point ComFin DBC Smartsoft OATI Zainet Navita 0%

10 %


Eur Europe ope

NAM

SA M

20 %

30 %

40 %
















Market Leadership Perceptions

Figure 12: Considered to be M arket Leader i n ETRM/ ETRM/ CTRM TRM

Overall CTRM/ETRM Market Leader

Don't Know OpenLink Endur Allegro None Triple Point SunGard DBC Smartsoft EKA ComFin Bulldog Affinity Calvus Solutions Generation 10 SAP OATI Agris Amphora VuePoint Brady OpenLink Right Angle

When asked who they considered to be the leader in the ETRM/CTRM markets, 27% of the survey respondents indicated they didn’t know who the leader would be. Of the vendors named, 24% indicated OpenLink’s Endur product as the leader in the market, followed by Allegro with 18%. In Europe, Europe, OpenLink’s Endur was noted about twice as often as Allegro; All egro; however, in North America, the two companies/products were noted equally as market leaders (Figure 12). 0%

5 % 1 0% 0% 1 5% 5% 2 0% 0% 2 5% 5% 3 0% 0%


Euro Europe pe

NAM

SAM


Overall Energy Commodities

Figure 13: Leader - Overall Energy Commodities

When asked to name a leader in the energy commodities space (regardless of the type of energy), 24% indicated OpenLink was the leader, with 18% noting Allegro. Those that felt there was no singular leader comprised 9%, followed by SunGard with 6% and Triple Point with 4% (Figure 13).

Don't Know OpenLink Allegro None SunGard Triple Point Trayport Contigo SolArc Calvus OATI SAP Brady 0%

10%


Eur Europe ope

NAM

SA M

20%

Beyond OpenLink and Allegro, 11% of the respondents felt there was no leader. Triple Point was noted by 5% and and SunGard was noted by 4%. OpenLink’s DBC Smartsoft product was most noted by Asia-Pacific respondents as the market leader.

30%


4 0%

Much like the market leader in ETRM/CTRM, OpenLink was named more often in Europe and equally so to Allegro in North America.

Electric Power Trading When asked to name a leader in managing electric power trading,

















Figure 15: Leader Leader - Natur al Gas Trading Don't Know Allegro OpenLink None SunGard Triple Point Trayport Contigo Calvus EKA SAP SolArc Lacima Murex

Natural Gas Trading In the natural gas space, Allegro edged out OpenLink as the leader in the category, driven particularly by their strength in the North American market. Others noted included SunGard with 5%, Triple Point with 3% and Trayport Contigo Contigo with 2%. All other vendors listed in Figure 15 were noted only once. 0%

10%

Asia-Pacific

Europe

NAM

SAM

20%

30%

Middle East

Figure 16: Leader Leader - Oil and Oil Products Trading Don't Know OpenLink Allegro None Triple Point SolArc Amphora Calvus

4 0%

Oil and Oil Products Trading In Oil and Oil Products Trading, OpenLink (18%) was again the most noted vendors, again followed by Allegro (9%). Triple Point, though trailing those that felt there was no leader l eader in the space, received notice by 7% of the respondents and was followed by Solarc (which was acquired by OpenLink more than 2 years ago) with 5%. Amphora, with 3% was the only other vendor to receive more than a single response.

Coal Trading Coal trading is not a large market for ETRM/CTRM vendors, and the responses we received received bear that out. The two companies














Figure 18: Leader Leader - Ags and Soft Soft s Trading


Ags and Softs Trading Very few of our respondents could identify a leader in ags and softs trading, with 65% indicating they didn’t d idn’t know and another 10% saying they felt there there was no leader in this category. category. Of the companies named as leaders, OpenLink was cited most often (8%), followed by EKA (6%) and Allegro (3%). The other named leaders were cited only a single time each by the respondents.

Don't Know None OpenLink EKA Triple Point Allegro Agris iRely Generation 10

Cotton, Coffee, Cocoa and Sugar Trading

Agiboo SolArc 0%

20 %


Euro Europe pe

NAM

SAM

40 %

60 %


Figure 19: Leader - Cot to n, Coff Coff ee, Cocoa and Sugar Trad ing Don't Know None EKA Triple Point

8 0%

The category of leader for cotton, coffee, cocoa and sugar trading was much like ags and softs trading, with 80% of the respondents saying they didn’t know who the leader would be and another 8% saying there was no no leader in this category. EKA was the most cited vendor, though only with 4%, followed by Triple Point with 3% and OpenLink with 2%. The others, Solarc, Allegro, G10 and Calvus Solutions were cited only a single time each.

Grains Trading Much like the other Ag categories, our respondent group had difficulty identifying a leader, with more than 80% saying they















Figure 21: Leader - Edible Oils Trading

Edible Oils

Don't Know None OpenLink Triple Point EKA Allegro SunGard Calvus iRely JustCommodity 0%

20%


Eur Europe ope

NAM

SA M

40 %

60%

80 %

The edible oils trading category was again much like the other ags categories, with few of the respondents able to name a leader. Of the named companies, OpenLink was noted by 4%, Triple Point and Eka by 3%, and Allegro by 2%. The others that named a single time were SunGard, Calvus Solutions, iRely and JustCommodity.


Base Metals Trading Much like the agricultural categories, our respondents were not well acquainted with the metals trading markets. In leadership in base metals, only Brady (5%), OpenLink (4%) and Triple Point (3%) received more than a single notice by b y the respondents.

Figure 22: Leader Leader - Base Base Met als Trading Don't Know None Brady OpenLink Triple Point Amphora Calvus Allegro

Precious Metals Trading

0%

20 %

40%


Eur Europe ope

NAM

SAM

60%

80 %


In precious metals leadership, OpenLink was most often cited with 5%, followed by Brady with 3% and Triple Point, Allegro and Murex, each with 2%. Calvus Solutions and SunGard were cited by one respondent each.















Figure 25: Leader - Shippi ng and Freight Trading Don't Know None Triple Point Allegro OpenLink Amphora Calvus Solarc Transcore Veson Shipnet

Shipping and Freight Trading

0%

20 %

As ia ia-Pa ci ci fific Middle East SAM

40%

60%

80 %

Eu ro ro pe pe N AM

Shipping and freight trading is a market that has been be en in suffering to a large degree since the start of the financial crisis and global economic recession in 2008. As it’s not been a market of great activity for some time, it is not surprising that 80% of our respondents could not identify a leader in the space (Figure 26). Of those that were cited as leaders, Triple Point was most often noted (6%), followed by Allegro (5%), OpenLink (3%) and Amphora (2%). Calvus Solutions, Solarc, Tanscore, Veson, Veson, and Shipnet were each noted by a single respondent.

Figure 26: Leader - Cloud Delivery

Cloud Delivery

Don't Know None Allegro OpenLink Aspect OATI Amazing EKA Woodlands Calvus Kiodex VuePoint

Surprisingly, particularly given the growing interest by the marketplace surrounding cloud delivery of CTRM solutions, very few of our respondents could name a leader in the cloud delivery category (Figure 27). Allegro, OpenLink and Aspect were noted noted by 3% of our respondents each, followed by Amazing, EKA, Woodlands, Calvus Solutions, Kiodex and VuePoint. 0%

20%

40%

60 %

80 %

As a follow-on question to the leader in cloud delivery category,















Summary of Leadership Perception Results Following is a summary of the results of perceived market leadership: Leadership Category

Leader

Runner Up

T h ird

Overall ETRM/CTRM

OpenLink

Allegro

Triple Point

Energy

OpenLink

Allegro

SunGard

Electric Power

OpenLink

Allegro

SunGard

Allegro

OpenLink

SunGard

OpenLink

Allegro

Triple Point

Allegro/OpenLink

-

SunGard

OpenLink

EKA

Triple Point

EKA

Triple Point

-

Triple Point

EKA

OpenLink

OpenLink

Triple Point/EKA

-

Brady

OpenLink

Triple Point

Precious Metals

OpenLink

Brady

Triple Point

Recyclables

OpenLink

-

-

Triple Point

Allegro

OpenLink

Allegro/Aspect Enterprise/OpenLink

-

-

Natural Gas Oil and Oil Products Coal Ags and Softs Cotton, Sugar, Cocoa etc. Grains Edible Oils Base Metals

Shipping Cloud Delivery

















Critical Attributes in ETRM / CTRM Software ComTech took advantage of this research effort to examine the attributes that buyers and users of CTRM software view as most critical to their business.

otherwise manage both physical and financial commodities, and whose ability to manage their business is dependent upon a quality product that is backed by quality support from their vendor.

We asked our respondents to rank numerous attributes/capabilities/functions of CTRM products by their view of the criticality of each, ranging from “Critical” to “Unimportant”. The descriptions of each attribute and its relative position in terms of

Other critical or highly ranked attributes include quality implementation services provided by the software vendor, noted by 87% of the respondents r espondents as being at least important, if not critical; support for multiple commodities (80% noted as at least














Trends and Analysis Installed Base and Geographic Differences When looking at brand recognition, it could be assumed that the respondents know, and are most familiar with, their own solution providers. In order to eliminate a potential bias associated with this familiarity, the indicated vendor installed bases can be removed to provide an a n adjusted view of brand recognition. When the installed base is removed from the unprompted brand recognition results, the overall effect is not hugely significant except for a small


It is also interesting to look at geographic recognition differences between the vendors’ recognition levels. In North America (Figure 31), the top 4 vendors are Allegro, OpenLink, OpenLi nk, SunGard and Triple Point and in Europe (Figure 32), the same 4 vendors are again top except that OpenLink and Allegro have switched places. Figure 31: 31: Unprompt ed Brand Recognit Recognit ion - North North America America Adj usted f or Inst Inst alled Base

Allegro OLF














Figure 32: 32: Unprompt ed Brand Recognition Recognition - Europe Adj usted for Inst Inst alled Base

OpenLink Allegro SunGard Triple Point Brady Murex Trayport Contigo EKA Navita SolArc TradePaq Agiboo


Market Maturity One way of assessing market maturity is to look at the virgin or replacement market ratios. The virgin component of a market is that that utilizes something other than a commercially available software solution and the replacement market is that which uses only commercially available solutions. In the data collected by the 2014 survey, the virgin component of the market is Europe and North America is almost identical at 34.7% and 34.1% respectively and at 34.5% overall across all of the data. Effectively then about 1/3 rd of the market is virgin and 2/3rds is replacement overall.













2014 ETRM / CTRM Vendor Perception Study Figure 33: 33: Segment Segment Relat Relat ive Mat uri t y Energy Commodities Overall Natural Gas


Figure 34 (compare with Figure 8 on page 9) shows the vendors that the consultants and integrators i ntegrators indicated that they knew, including geographic splits as well. In fact, the responses are almost

Electric Power Crude Oil/Products Coal Overall Architecture Ags/Softs Shipping and Freight Grains Base Metals Delivered in the Cloud Ediable Oils Precious Metals

Figure 34: Known Vendors Consult ant s and Systems Int egrat ors Only OLF Allegro Triple Point SunGard Brady EKA Amphora Trayport Contigo Murex














There is little geographic variation except perhaps for Trayport Contigo which is much better known by European service companies. Figure 35: 35: Overal l Leadershi Leadershi p Consult onsult ant s and Systems Integrat Integrat ors Only OLF Allegro Don't know None Varies Generation 10 SAP SunGard EKA Triple Point


As perhaps might be expected, on average the consultants and integrators do keep abreast of developments among the vendors more diligently than the broader sample, as shown in Figure 36. Figure 36: 36: How closely closely do you foll ow t he ETRM/CTR ETRM/CTRM M mark ets? Consult onsult ants and System Integrat ors Only Only

8% 21% 71%
















When it comes to the features and functions of an ETRM or CTRM that are important, the general respondents and the Consultants/SI’s generally agree (Figure 37).


However, there are one or two glaring differences that are interesting. While Consultants and SI’s would rank ‘Supplied by a top vendor’ very highly, the general respondents do not. Similarly, the Consultants and SI’s rank ‘modern modular














Trends By taking previous data from CommodityPoint Vendor Perception studies, it is possible to examine trends over the last several years in terms of brand awareness and market leadership

Commodity Technology Advisory llc Figure 38: 38: Brand Aw areness areness Over Over Time

80% 60%














It is interesting is to look at the broader trends. Note that Triple Point’s brand recognition has eroded significantly faster than that of OpenLink, Allegro and SunGard from first fir st to last in the group of four with the major fall occurring since its


Market leadership perception trends are also interesting (Figure 39), but also must be viewed cautiously for the same reasons as outlined previously.















About Allegro Allegro is a leading provider of commodity value chain and risk management (CVCRM) software for power power and gas utilities, refiners, producers, traders and commodity consumers. With more than 30 years of deep industry expertise, Allegro provides real-time intelligence and decision-making capabilities, from the source of the commodity ( ground), ground), through transportation, to the















About Allegro (Cont’d) Technology Allegro business components are deployed as i ndependent components components in a Service Oriented Architecture under Microsoft .NET technology. technology. Allegro’s software architecture has been designed with six key areas of focus:







































CTRM Vendor Perceptions Report

Recommend Documents