What Next for CTRM Systems?


Emerging Market Trends – Beyond trade capture and risk management in the face of rising complexity and costs


The relationship between CTRM vendors and their clients is a complex one. The interests of both parties can often be misaligned. This article highlights how several CTRM industry vendors view the development of systems deployment going forward. These include the CTRM selection process, new customer requirements and system offerings, and the use of cloud-based and SaaS applications.


IN OUR LAST edition [see Commodities Now, March 2012] we highlighted some of the ways innovative firms have introduced a number of strategies to address the shortcomings of the ‘fixed price’ and ‘time and materials’ models in looking for a Goldilocks Allocation to CTRM implementation. This process is predicated on an understanding between


both parties – including positive incentives to effectively foster collaboration – of the goals and objectives of implementation and additions going forward. This process and future expectations for CTRM systems is discussed here. We asked a number of leading firms in the industry – a major,


full service, player [Allegro Development Corporation]; a so- called mid-tear orientated provider [Aspect Enterprise Solutions]; and a specialist provider of technology and inputs in to the CTRM process and third-party system integrators [Contigo] – for their views in illuminating some of the key features for current and future CTRM requirements.


The Evolving CTRM Selection Process Selecting CTRM system has always been a difficult, costly, and


risky process. Over the years, the process has evolved to become less so. For example, “As energy companies have become more advanced in their requirements, they have also changed the process of how they purchase software solutions. The process has become extended in time and, more importantly, has become more advanced in the level of detail that companies want to see,” according to Allegro, with ‘demos’ now more scripted in nature and tailored with customer specific data (actual trades and transactions). “This evaluation typically includes the vetting of results based on that actual data to ensure that the solution supports the company’s specific requirements.” Companies like Aspect offer free trials for a system – unheard


of in the past. “Implementations are now more streamlined, simple and very quick [at least for SaaS-based deployment]. This SaaS model offering has further reduced the IT costs and complexity of CTRM systems. “The selection process has evolved to make it simpler, less costly and less risky,” say Aspect. SaaS for CTRM means that more mid-market companies are able to replace spreadsheets and home-grown systems because they’re affordable, unlike software/hardware solutions. While the RFQ/ITT process is still widely used, a number of organisations are moving away from this model. An ITT process


inherently restricts the communication channels between purchaser and vendor; “Anyone with experience of CTRM implementations knows that good communication is key to a successful delivery – and to deliberately restrict the start of the business relationship can present problems later in the project,” insist Contigo. Moreover, third-party system integrators


still play a key role in CTRM selection, they assert (although many will still have preferred vendors, potentially favouring solutions that they have previously implemented and therefore understand). “Clients should do their own research, and work with the SIs to achieve the right solution for all parties involved,” [Contigo].


Implementation Complexity & Costs Strategic approach: Energy companies,


for example, continue to have a strong interest in software that can be deployed as a series of focused projects, where each project addresses a specific business objective and generates focused business benefits. “This is in stark contrast to more ‘monolithic’ IT projects of the recent past,” say Allegro who call this approach ‘Agile


“Anyone with experience of CTRM implementations knows that good communication is key to a successful delivery”


Deployment’ which reduces project risk, manages complexity, provides a better match of costs with business benefits, and achieves business benefits faster than traditional approaches. “Allegro’s flexibility, extensibility, and component- based approach make it well suited for agile


June 2012 53


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96