Relevant Business Systems, (http://c.technologyevaluation.com/?u=/cp/TEC_article_20050128_al.asp&cl=1&i=732&c=205), a privately-held San Ramon, CA-based provider of enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions that helps mid-size and large aerospace and defense (A&D), engineer-to-order (ETO), contract manufacturing, maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO), and like project-oriented manufacturing companies to improve their business might be a true example of a focused niche vendor. Relevant, which has a focus in the above closely related markets, has thus recently captured a significant market and mindshare in the segment, particularly given that several US-based ETO-like companies have thereby decided to partner with the vendor by selecting the flagship Relevant ERP (formerly Integrated Financial & Manufacturing Control System [INFIMACS II]) system.
While the company's focus allows it to keep pace with trends in technology and customer requirements in its target niche, too narrow a focus comes with its liabilities as well. Namely, a well-defined and narrow target is indisputably the best course of action for any smaller vendor. Yet, to some, a smaller size compared to most competitors may imply a negative viability perception these days when many believe that "bigger is better". Further, low visibility and brand recognition (which are almost non-existent outside the US), and the product's limited global capabilities are the challenges the company has yet to overcome.
While the nature of the vendor's target market, which often may include US government security clearances and similar classified requirements (i.e., often the prospect requires the potential software provider to be American, whereby any code-supporting staff has to be US citizens), does not require an international focus, Relevant might still be losing some deals in less government-oriented sectors because of its inability to support prospects outside North America and in languages other than English. Thus, it had entertained the thought of starting the presence in Asia (due to Solectron as its high-profile reference), but the reality check has prevailed for the time being. The attempt at global expansion through some potentially synergistic partnerships (see PSI AG To Become More Germane Globally Via Relevant Partnership) has not resulted in much success either.
Yet factoring in costs, the financial viability of the vendor, local support, and many other criteria remain a good practice for manufacturers that are selecting solutions. One should never forget about the competition from large and more visible players like SAP, Oracle (including recently acquired PeopleSoft), SSA Global, Intentia, IFS, Glovia, Deltek Systems, and Cincom Systems that are entrenched within the higher-end of the market and have long begun addressing the required functionality for the target segment. Although the solutions from larger providers often come with some aforementioned caveats for the lower end of the market, such as typically requiring longer implementation time frames, more customizations, or a need to be configured for the business and industry entirely from scratch, the mindshare and brand recognition of larger vendors cannot be discounted.
The situation is not much easier when it comes to its usual direct competitors in the lower end of the market, such as former Lilly Software (now part of Infor Global Solutions), Jobscope, Made2Manage, Epicor (the Vantage product), MAPICS (the SyteLine product), Visibility, and Encompix. Encompix, for instance, also allows users to estimate and quote an overall project using "buckets" of time or dollars, which enables enterprises to perform actual rollups. In other words, companies can track orders and projects and compare their progress to the original estimate, as well as to previous iterative changes, all in the "bucket" form (e.g., total engineering hours or total dollars), which blunts Relevant's differentiation from many other systems that claim to be ETO-oriented but that can only track the current iteration (see Encompix—Thriving on Encompassing Complexity). Relevant may still keep Encompix at bay by targeting somewhat larger ETO companies and emphasizing its multi-division and multicompany capabilities, but the gap is likely to narrow in the future.
Also, many ETO prospects still have notable mixed-mode manufacturing environments, which handle a significant deal of widgets' and require certain repetitive manufacturing and inventory management functionalities, where Relevant may not be that competitive as in clear-cut ETO environments. The vendor has only recently more clearly aligned its sales and marketing efforts fully with the inherent capabilities of its product. Thus, at least some existing discrete mixed-mode manufacturing customers that do not belong to the Relevant's recently sharpened focus on A&D and MRO segments (e.g., at some stage, the vendor was also targeting door and window frames manufacturers, where it has garnered some install base) might feel somewhat neglected by the future product developments, and the vendor will have to walk a fine line between satisfying these customers and not losing its focus and overstretching its R&D funds. This is in spite of co-development relationships Relevant has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) with a number of customers (two very large ones in particular), which relationships, together with other non-public arrangements, have enabled the vendor to support an aggressive level of R&D that would not normally be possible for a smaller software company.
source
http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/smaller-vendors-can-still-provide-relevant-business-systems-part-five-challenges-and-user-recommendations-17749/
While the company's focus allows it to keep pace with trends in technology and customer requirements in its target niche, too narrow a focus comes with its liabilities as well. Namely, a well-defined and narrow target is indisputably the best course of action for any smaller vendor. Yet, to some, a smaller size compared to most competitors may imply a negative viability perception these days when many believe that "bigger is better". Further, low visibility and brand recognition (which are almost non-existent outside the US), and the product's limited global capabilities are the challenges the company has yet to overcome.
While the nature of the vendor's target market, which often may include US government security clearances and similar classified requirements (i.e., often the prospect requires the potential software provider to be American, whereby any code-supporting staff has to be US citizens), does not require an international focus, Relevant might still be losing some deals in less government-oriented sectors because of its inability to support prospects outside North America and in languages other than English. Thus, it had entertained the thought of starting the presence in Asia (due to Solectron as its high-profile reference), but the reality check has prevailed for the time being. The attempt at global expansion through some potentially synergistic partnerships (see PSI AG To Become More Germane Globally Via Relevant Partnership) has not resulted in much success either.
Yet factoring in costs, the financial viability of the vendor, local support, and many other criteria remain a good practice for manufacturers that are selecting solutions. One should never forget about the competition from large and more visible players like SAP, Oracle (including recently acquired PeopleSoft), SSA Global, Intentia, IFS, Glovia, Deltek Systems, and Cincom Systems that are entrenched within the higher-end of the market and have long begun addressing the required functionality for the target segment. Although the solutions from larger providers often come with some aforementioned caveats for the lower end of the market, such as typically requiring longer implementation time frames, more customizations, or a need to be configured for the business and industry entirely from scratch, the mindshare and brand recognition of larger vendors cannot be discounted.
The situation is not much easier when it comes to its usual direct competitors in the lower end of the market, such as former Lilly Software (now part of Infor Global Solutions), Jobscope, Made2Manage, Epicor (the Vantage product), MAPICS (the SyteLine product), Visibility, and Encompix. Encompix, for instance, also allows users to estimate and quote an overall project using "buckets" of time or dollars, which enables enterprises to perform actual rollups. In other words, companies can track orders and projects and compare their progress to the original estimate, as well as to previous iterative changes, all in the "bucket" form (e.g., total engineering hours or total dollars), which blunts Relevant's differentiation from many other systems that claim to be ETO-oriented but that can only track the current iteration (see Encompix—Thriving on Encompassing Complexity). Relevant may still keep Encompix at bay by targeting somewhat larger ETO companies and emphasizing its multi-division and multicompany capabilities, but the gap is likely to narrow in the future.
Also, many ETO prospects still have notable mixed-mode manufacturing environments, which handle a significant deal of widgets' and require certain repetitive manufacturing and inventory management functionalities, where Relevant may not be that competitive as in clear-cut ETO environments. The vendor has only recently more clearly aligned its sales and marketing efforts fully with the inherent capabilities of its product. Thus, at least some existing discrete mixed-mode manufacturing customers that do not belong to the Relevant's recently sharpened focus on A&D and MRO segments (e.g., at some stage, the vendor was also targeting door and window frames manufacturers, where it has garnered some install base) might feel somewhat neglected by the future product developments, and the vendor will have to walk a fine line between satisfying these customers and not losing its focus and overstretching its R&D funds. This is in spite of co-development relationships Relevant has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) with a number of customers (two very large ones in particular), which relationships, together with other non-public arrangements, have enabled the vendor to support an aggressive level of R&D that would not normally be possible for a smaller software company.
source
http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/smaller-vendors-can-still-provide-relevant-business-systems-part-five-challenges-and-user-recommendations-17749/
No comments:
Post a Comment