Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Research - No Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Sanchez who wrote (695)	8/1/1998 11:47:00 AM
From: Steve Sanchez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 810

John Jenkins answers Post Year 2000 question during last CC: (with Kevin Fallon) Jeff (Whitehorn): All right, now go on. Beyond Year 2000, where are we going to be when we grow up? John (Jenkins): Well, I mean, the reality is, you know, we had a unique and thriving and growing company before the Y2K event. We've said this before, that Y2K does several things. It brings us new clients- importantly, brings us to a level of exposure within those clients. As we've said in our distribution, plant managers, who are the people that we usually dealt with from a process control standpoint are not the people making Y2K decisions. We have the ear, at this point, of the CFO, CIO. And we have the opportunity then to tell the story of the value that those large, multi-site, multi-national organizations can derive from, let's say, an enterprise integration strategy that includes bringing the process information up through an advanced planning system into their ERP system. Now that is going to be a major thrust for us. Our post Year 2000 is not going to live or die by that success. But it's a natural step for us to take, you know, as a result of the mind share that we've captured in the Y2K event. Jeff (Whitehorn): What I'm trying to get at is does that mean, because I thought that is what you were getting at. Does that mean you occasionally may compete against an SAP or a (Manugistics) or an (I-2) for a certain part of the puzzle? Or does it mean now that people know of us it's more than likely that we will be partners on a more integrated basis with those types of companies? Kevin (Fallon): John, let me answer this if I can. John (Jenkins): Okay. Kevin (Fallon): Is that okay? Jeff, the answer is that some companies have spent multi millions of dollars on SAP without actual ROI justification. One particular example, a company had, I think, 10 different order entry systems. They put in SAP to just collapse the whole scenario down to one order entry system. So they were able to justify taking massive costs out without improving the business flow, the through-put of their product flow through their business. The area that we are focused on- so, those systems, the SAP-type systems, the ERP systems, are more like transaction oriented systems. When you get to the (I-2) (Manugistics) that you brought up, we're dealing now with improving supply chain performance in constraint-based manufacturing. And that part of the market is an exploding growth area. As I mentioned it's growing at 70 percent growth rate right now and already is a formidable market. So part of our strategy is to team with those types of folks, to build value out of extensions on their core products and leverage to help our customers collapse their supply chain cost and increase the speed and through-put of the product flow. Jeff (Whitehorn): Should we expect an announcement like something like that? Kevin (Fallon): I'd better punt that over to John and the lawyer in Denver. Jeff (Whitehorn): When in doubt, ask for legal help. Okay. Kevin (Fallon): John, I don't know what the right response is. John (Jenkins): The right response is, no comment.