Conference Call Side Discussion: Fluor Daniel not pushing Y2K work
=================================================================
From: JDN Nov 14 1997 Reply #6000
Dear Viktor: I would like more comment on FLUOR deciding internally to not push
Y2K work. What exactly does that mean? It could be very good. Could it mean that
rather than take a high profile in the Y2K work that they will merely recommend
TPRO to their customers who need it?? Surely there has to be a reason for the alliance
in the first place? Could anyone discuss this? JDN
From: C.K. Houston Nov 14 1997 Reply #6003
< I would like more comment on FLUOR deciding internally to not push Y2K work.
What exactly does that mean? It could be very good. Could it mean that rather than
take a high profile in the Y2K work that they will merely recommend TPRO to their
customers who need it?? Surely there has to be a reason for the alliance in the first
place?>
Corporate Politics. Image. Ego.
Read the 1st part of this link again. (Skip the intro paragraph.) Explains why Fluor
wanted ... and needed the TPRO alliance. Couldn't get their database together ....
TPRO was far further ahead. Time's running out. Considering the urgency of the
situation, the fact that there is a definite deadline, the year 2000, Fluor figured it made
sense to team up with TPRO. This also bears on potential competition. Time is a
barrier to entry in this field. Also one guy said that Fluor was concerned about liability
with respect to Y2K. And that's why they were interested in teaming with TPRO.
No wonder Owens came from Fluor to TPRO. Smart guy.
techstocks.com
From: Viktor Nov 14 1997 Reply #6004
JDN, It wasn't clear and came up in context of Owen who switched Fluor for Topro
because of the huge opportunities he found in Topro and because Fluor was slow to
catch up with his Y2K activities.
From: JDN Nov 14 1997 Reply #6005
Dear Cheryl: Thank you, I reread your URL. I still dont understand this. Obviously
FLUOR will have many customers who NEED TPRO's expertise. Will not FLUOR
guide them to TPRO rather than just ignore their problem? JDN
From: JDN Nov 14 1997 Reply #6006
Dear Viktor: Well, at this point, I consider it a plus for TPRO. Just because someone "internally" decides not to focus on the "imbedded systems" problem that doesnt make it go away. Seems to me if FLUOR isnt going to address it themselves they have no choice but to recommend those clients to TPRO.
From: Clayleas Nov 14 1997 Reply #6007
JDN, According to Jenkins, it really doesn't matter whether or not Fluor recommends clients to TPRO. He said that they originally looked at the Fluor alliance as a way of getting new business, but they now see that they are getting the business anyway without Fluor.
From: Hardrocker Nov 14 1997 Reply #6008
There may be many underlying reasons why Fluor decided not to get too agressive
with Y2K work, and the way this was presented on the conference call was one more
example of smart TPRO management, IMHO. The wording was completely tactful
and unoffensive. Fluor may still prove to be a good "friend" to have waiting in the
wings, so no need to burn bridges.
But I think your comment regarding slowness may have been a key variable. Big
corporations typically move slowly with virtually every major
decision....study/analyze/forecast/budget/up the organizational
hierarchy/questions/down the org'l hierarchy, then do it all over again, until the window
of opportunity may have disappeared.
TPRO has proven their ability to be nimble through this entire exercise, at each bend in
the road. I'm not sure that a company as big as Fluor could run at this pace |
