Gtnews TMS Survey Report 2012

8/16/2019 Gtnews TMS Survey Report 2012

1/46

TreasuryManagementSystemsSurvey

Results 2012


2/46

2

Contents

About gtnews: Introduction 3

About Reval: Our Sponsor 4

Executive Summary 6

Respondent Profile 9

Market Presence

Current usage 10

Service type 13

System maturity 15

Selection and Implementation

Selection process 17

Time to implement 19

Challenges 21

Interfacing and Functionality

Solutions integration 23

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) 25

Centres/hubs 27

Asset classes recorded 29

Managing financial risk 31

Effectiveness

Connecting to third-party solutions 33

Ease of upgrade 35

Benefit to organisation 37

Key processes 39

Areas for improvement 41

Conclusion 43

Appendix I: Name of ERP 44

Appendix II: Other Areas of Improvement 45


3/46

3

About

gtnews – Introduction

Together, gtnews and the AFP offer anunrivalled mix of information, education,training and member services to more thanthree-quarters of the world’s largest 1000corporations.

gtnews, an Association for Financial Professionals®

’(AFP) company headquartered in London, is theleading global knowledge resource for over 50,000treasury, finance, payments and cash managementprofessionals. Online, gtnews is updated weekly andprovides subscribers access to an archive of almost8,000 global treasury articles in addition to specialreports, commentaries, surveys, polls, news, ratingsupdates and whitepapers.

Access to gtnews.com is free of charge to those whoregister, and we never sell names or e-mailaddresses, so our readers’ privacy is assured.

The gtnews editors encourage industry experts toshare their knowledge on key issues facing treasuryand financial professionals, including best practices incash and liquidity management, regulatory changes,trends in the financial supply chain, treasurytechnology and the pursuit of internal efficiencies.

Our authors come from the treasury departments ofleading corporations, banks, technology companies,

governments and specialist consultancies. All ourcontent is checked and edited by our London-basedteam of experienced financial writers, whocommission, write and publish new material everyweek.


4/46

4

About

Reval – Our Sponsor

Reval’s Cloud-based Solution Brings Treasury and Risk Management into the New World

Introduction

Reval provides the treasury community with a flexible and innovative treasury and risk management (TRM) solution,

delivered over the web as a software-as-a-service (SaaS). Over 550 companies globally use Reval, for

comprehensive cash management, liquidity management, financial risk management and hedge accounting solutions.

Using only an internet browser, companies can process debt and derivative instruments, straight-through from trade

to settlement, and perform advanced risk analytics along the lifecycle, entirely without manual intervention. From

liquidity risk to operational risk, Reval’s fully SaaS -based TRM manages the integrated risk lifecycle and enables

treasuries to gain complete global visibility into cash positions and exposures. Reval empowers treasuries to

centralise their operations and optimise processes across global entities for better decision-making and control. Thescope and timeliness of Reval’s data and analytics capabilities enables companies to respond confidently and

strategically to an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.

Reval’s single SaaS solution for TRM offers:

Cash and Liquidity Management

• Achieve complete visibility into your organisation’s cash positions and risk exposures.

• Gain an accurate picture of cash positions to support strategic funding and investment decisions, while

ensuring access to both short-term credit and long-term financing.

• Centralise all aspects of the payment initiation, approval and release workflow, allowing for stronger audit,

controls and visibility.• Reduce bank transaction costs, optimise liquidity decision-making and enforce policies and controls.

• Manage, track, analyse and account for all your trading portfolios in one centralised location.

• Increase treasury productivity, efficiency and control for cash assets by automating processes to reduce

manual intervention.

Financial Risk Management

• Support all areas of financial risk: market, credit and liquidity across all asset classes.

• Achieve best practice exposure aggregation, evaluation, and derivative execution tools.

• Leverage independent and accurate valuations of derivatives.

• Evaluate and optimise hedging strategies to foster strategic decisions and strategy adjustments.

• Manage all aspects of post-trade maintenance for the duration of the hedge.


5/46

5

Hedge Accounting and Compliance

• Comply with all accounting regulations globally, including ASC 815 (FAS 133), IAS 39, IFRS 9 and more.

Prepare for and comply with existing and evolving financial regulations such as the SEC, Dodd-Frank Act, EU

Commission, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), etc.

• Support and manage derivatives of all asset classes including foreign exchange (FX), interest rates and

commodities.

• Streamline reporting requirements.

Effectively monitor changes in the mark-to-market of assets and liabilities as well as in hedges.

Identify and track hedges related to interest rate.

Founded in 1999, Reval is headquartered in New York with regional centres across North America, Europe, Middle

East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia-Pacific. For more information, please visit www.reval.com or contact

[email protected].

http://www.reval.com/http://www.reval.com/http://www.reval.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.reval.com/


6/46

6

Executive Summary

The annual gtnews Treasury Management

Systems Survey was conducted by gtnews in

August 2012.

A total of 506 corporate level respondents

participated in the 2012 survey. Western

European-based readers accounted for 40%

of all survey responses. North American

readers represented 31% of survey

participants while those from the Asia-Pacific

region made up 17% of the responses.

The greatest share of survey respondents -

32% - was comprised of those whose

organisations have annual revenues between

US$1bn and US$9.9bn. Another 31% of

respondents were from organisations with

annual revenues below US$250m, while

nearly a quarter of the organisations

represented had annual revenues at or above

US$10bn.

Nearly seven in 10 organisations currently use

a treasury management system (TMS). Among those not currently using a TMS,

roughly half plan to introduce one in the next

24 months. Only 16% do not currently have a

TMS and also do not intend to introduce one

in the near future.

A majority (53%) of organisations currently

use a commercially available TMS. This share

is essentially unchanged from that reported in

2011 (55%). By comparison, 9% use a TMS in

the form of the module provided with theirenterprise resource planning (ERP) system,

while 7% use a system built in house.

The majority (75%) of TMS used by

companies are licensed and installed on

servers; a quarter is delivered as a software-

as-a-service (SaaS). SaaS TMS are most

prevalent in North America, where they

account for 41% of all treasury management

systems.

Most organisations (62%) select theirTMS/ERP through a request for proposal

(RFP). Roughly a quarter reach out to vendorsdirectly, while just 8% use consulting

practices, including a mere 2% that rely on the

Big 4 (Deloitte & Touche, PwC, Ernst &Young

and KPMG).

For over half of the organisations surveyed,

TMS/TRM implementation occurs in one year

or less. Another quarter of organisations report

that they complete such implementation in 12

to 17 months while 11% take 18 to 23 months.

Only one in 10 organisations has seenimplementation extend to two years or longer.

Nearly two in five respondents indicate that

the greatest challenge to TMS implementation

is committing internal team resources. Overall

project organisation and methodology is the

second greatest challenge (cited by 28% of

respondents), while only 13% indicate that

timing and budget planning for the project is

their organisations’ greatest challenge.

Consistent with 2011 survey results, themajority of organisations’ TMS (61%) can

interface with an ERP system. SAP remains

the most popular ERP system, with Oracle a

distant second.

Nearly four in five organisations record asset

classes of foreign exchange (FX), commercial

paper, loans and deposits, with almost three

quarters (74%) recording simple asset

classes. Over half record FX and traded

derivatives. About a third record derivativesand commodities. Sophisticated asset classes

such as complex derivatives are recorded by

16% of organisations currently using TMS.

The most common system used to manage

financial risk remains the spreadsheet, used

by just over a third of organisations. An all-in-

one treasury risk management (TRM) solution

is a close second, used by 33% of companies,

while a traditional TMS with a bolt-on risk

management solution is used by just 16% of

organisations.


7/46

7

For nearly two in five organisations, the

strongest area of organisational improvement

resulting from implementation of TMS (or

TRM) is increased operational efficiency.

Twenty-eight percent of survey respondents

cite improved process control and compliance

as the greatest organisational improvement.

Another 18% indicate the greatest benefit is

improved reporting/analytical intelligence to

support decision-making. Nine percent report

the greatest benefit is increased visibility to

risk exposures.

Over half of survey respondents rank their

organisations’ TMS as “very good” or “good”

(on a five-point scale) in the areas oftransaction capture, cash management, debt

management, reporting and investment

management. Fewer than half rate their TMS

as favourably on derivatives processing,

forecasting, analytics, risk management and

business intelligence.

When asked which areas of functionalitywould bring the biggest improvement to their

organisation’s TMS, a sizable share (22%)

answered cash flow forecasting, which,indeed, is the top-rated choice across the

board. Seventeen percent indicated

integration/interoperability, as well as

electronic bank account management (eBAM).

Fifteen percent selected risk management and

11% chose connectivity to SWIFTNet.


8/46

8

2012 Survey Findings


9/46

9

Respondent Profile

A total of 506 corporate level respondents participated in the online gtnews 2012 Treasury Management SystemsSurvey.

Geographical spread

Survey participants were geographically diverse. Western European-based readers accounted for 40% of all surveyresponses. North American readers represented 31% of survey respondents, while those from the Asia-Pacific regionmade up 17% of the responses. Responses from readers in central and eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle Eastand Africa (MEA) combined constituted 12% of all responses.

Due to the limited sample size, MEA and CEE were omitted from regional analysis.

Company size

Organisations of all sizes (as determined by annual revenue in US dollars) were represented in the survey. Thegreatest share of survey respondents was from organisations that have annual revenues between US$1bn andUS$9.9bn (32%). Another 31% of respondents were from organisations with annual revenues below US$250m, whilenearly a quarter of the organisations represented had annual revenues of at least US$10bn.

40%

31%

17%

8%4%

Figure 1: Respondent Profile by Region (%)

Western Europe

North America

Asia-Pacific

Middle East and Africa (MEA)

Central and eastern Europe (CEE)

31%

14%32%

23%

Figure 2: Respondent Profile by Annual Revenue (%)

< US$250m

US$250m-$999m

US$1bn-$9.9bn

≥ US$10bn


10/46

10

Current Usage

Does your org anisat ion current ly use a treasu ry management

system (TMS)?

> Yes, we built our own system> Yes, I am using the module provided with my enterprise resource planning (ERP) system> No, but planning to introduce one in the next 24 months> No

Nearly seven in 10 organisations currently use a TMS. Among those not currently using a TMS, roughly half plan tointroduce one in the next 24 months. Only 16% do not currently have a TMS nor do they intend to introduce one in the

near future.

The importance of adopting a TMS to handle treasury operations in a more structured and automated fashion isevident by the nearly 70% of respondents who use a TMS. The share of those who do not plan to introduce a TMS inthe foreseeable future (16%) may be a result of an unclear need or current economic conditions.

A majority (53%) of organisations currently use a commercially available TMS. This percentage is essentiallyunchanged from 2011 results (55%). By comparison, 9% of organisations use a TMS in the form of the moduleprovided with their enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, while 7% use a system built in-house.

Commercially available systems ensure up-to-date functionalities and coverage of best practice treasury features. Inthe past, banks would offer some treasury functionalities through their proprietary platform. Currently, many corporatetreasurers prefer not to be limited by any particular proprietary system and so opt to invest in a commercial TMS.

53%

7%

9%

15%

16%

Figure 3: Prevalence of TMS (%)

Yes, my organisation is using a

commercially available system

Yes, we built our own

Yes, I am using the module providedwith my enterprise resource planning

(ERP) system

No, but planning to introduce one in the

next 24 months

No


11/46

11

Organisations in western Europe are more likely to use a TMS than their peers in North America and Asia-Pacific.Only 24% of survey respondents in western Europe indicate that their organisations do not currently use a TMS,compared to the 37% of organisations in North America and 34% of organisations in the Asia-Pacific region that donot. Many organisations in western Europe without a TMS also intend to introduce one in the near term. This reaffirms

the findings from the 2011 survey in which only 28% of western European organisations lacked a TMS.

The prevalence of commercially available systems also varies by region. Two-thirds of western European corporatesrely on a commercially available system compared to roughly half (51%) of North American organisations and justover a third (36%) of Asia-Pacific organisations. Asia-Pacific organisations also appear more likely to have built theirown TMS.

Treasury departments use a TMS predominantly to manage multi-currency and cross-country transactions, as well asto comply with regulatory regimes. All these factors represent the norm in Europe, which explains the extensive use ofTMS in this region. North America organisations have been, until recently, quite relaxed in terms of regulatorycompliance when compared with those in western Europe. Companies not particularly advanced in treasury practicestend to satisfy their needs with internally developed systems due to the lower set of requirements for more specificand mission-critical functionalities. Relatively more Asian companies fall within this latter category.

Table 1:

Prevalence of TMS by Region (%)

Western

Europe North

America Asia-

Pacific

Yes, my organisation is using a commercially available system 67 51 36

Yes, we built our own 3 5 17

Yes, I am using the module provided with my enterprise resource planning (ERP)

system 6 7 14

No, but planning to introduce one in the next 24 months 11 17 13

No 13 20 21

The use of TMS continues to be more prevalent at larger companies. Organisations with annual revenues of at leastUS$10bn are the most likely to use such systems (85%). Fewer than half of organisations with less than US$1bn inannual revenues use commercially available systems versus more than two-thirds of those with annual revenues of atleast US$10bn. The smallest organisations - those with annual revenues of less than US$250m - are most likely tobuild their own TMS when needed, but roughly one quarter of those smallest organisations that do not currently havea TMS indicate they do not plan to introduce one either.


12/46

12

While the largest organisations are usually the ones with the most technical ability to build custom systems in house,they are also aware of the multiplicity of applications and functionalities that today’s TMS must address. Theseconsiderations make it much more affordable - and practical - to have a specialised third-party vendor build, manage,and (eventually) run the system. The continuous need to adapt the TMS to changing regulatory conditions

encourages the adoption of commercially available solutions. The route to commercially available TMS is very similarto the dynamics that spurred companies to replace their proprietary applications with an enterprise resource planning(ERP), for example an SAP or Oracle system.

Table 2: Prevalence of TMS by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


13/46

13

Service Type Is your organisation’s TMS:

> Licensed and installed on your servers> Delivered as software-as-a-service (SaaS)

The majority (75%) of companies’ TMS are licensed and installed on servers, whereas a quarter are delivered assoftware-as-a-service (SaaS).

The concentration of companies through mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and the trend toward centralising treasurydecision-making explains the high percentage of licensed versus SaaS TMS. Although concerns regarding security

and data protection with SaaS are waning, licensed solutions still garner a higher confidence level for their ability tohandle sensitive data. Moreover, companies often customise their TMS, and SaaS is not the best option in thisregard.

SaaS is most prevalent in North America, where it accounts for 41% of TMS. By comparison, over three-quarters oforganisations in western Europe and Asia-Pacific have their TMS licensed and installed on servers.

North American companies are traditionally more ready to adopt new technologies and have lower constraints relatedto multi-country and multi-currency features that require strong integration capabilities, which are betteraccommodated by installed systems.

Table 3:

TMS Type by Region (%)

Western Europe North America Asia-Pacific

Licensed and installed on your servers 78 59 78

Delivered as software-as-a-service (SaaS) 22 41 22

75%

25%

Figure 4: Type of TMS (%)

Licensed and installed on your servers

Delivered as software-as-a-service

(SaaS)


14/46

14

Licensing and installation on servers is most common regardless of organisational size. However, the largestcompanies are most likely to opt for licensing and installing their TMS on their servers and least likely to use SaaS.

To reiterate, SaaS does not imply high levels of customisation and therefore is preferred by those companies that

require affordable (i.e. low cost) software at the expense of flexibility in tailoring the application to local needs. Largerorganisations tend to be more formal in the management of their processes and require higher degrees of flexibility intheir TMS that adapts to specific company policies and needs.

Table 4:

TMS Type by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


15/46


16/46


17/46

17

Selection Process

What is/was y ou r TMS/ERP select ion pro cess?

> Request for proposal (RFP)> Direct outreach to vendor> Big 4 consulting practice> Third-party consulting practice> Other

Most organisations (62%) select their TMS/ERP through a request for proposal (RFP). Roughly a quarter reaches outto vendors directly, while just 8% use consulting practices, including a mere 2% that rely on the Big 4 (Deloitte &Touche, PwC, Ernst &Young and KPMG).

The long-lasting experience of companies using TMS (see Figure 5) allows companies to approach solution vendorsdirectly with structured and formalised RFP documents. Such an approach also requires companies to have internalteams of resources dedicated to follow the entire RFP process, as well as the capabilities to appreciate and evaluatethe functional differences between the proposed solutions.

62%

24%

2% 6% 6%

Figure 6: TMS Selection Process (%)

Request for proposal (RFP)

Direct outreach to vendor

Big 4 consulting practice

Third-party consulting practice

Other


18/46

18

The use of RFPs for TMS/ERP selection is widespread across regions, although there are some differences. Asia-Pacific organisations are relatively more likely to use consultants (22%) and somewhat less likely to reach out tovendors directly (15%) compared to their European and North American peers. This may be reflective of Asia-Pacificbusiness culture. Also, the relatively shorter timeframe during which some companies in Asia have used TMS (see

Table 5) makes some less familiar with the intricacies and complexities of a formal RFP process.

Table 7:

TMS Selection Process by Region (%)


Request for proposal 63 66 59

Direct outreach to vendor 24 20 15

Big 4 consulting practice 2 3 7

Third-party consulting practice 5 4 15

Other 6 7 4

While a majority of organisations of all sizes use RFPs, almost three-quarters of the largest organisations do so. Thisis reflective of procurement’s influence on competitive RFPs at large organisations. Moreover, for regulatorycompliance large companies must show (via documentation) that their selection process was conducted through aformal procedure.

Smaller companies are more likely than larger ones to reach out to vendors directly. Thirty-one percent oforganisations with less than US$250m in annual revenues use direct outreach versus just 26% of those with annualrevenues between US$250m and US$999m, 24% of those with annual revenues between US$1bn and US$9.9 bn,and 18% with annual revenues of at least US$10bn.

Table 8:

TMS Selection Process by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


19/46

19

Time to Implement

What was the durat ion o f your TMS/treasu ry r isk management (TRM)

implementat ion project?

> 12 months or less

> 12-17 months

> 18-23 months

> 24 months or longer

In over half of the organisations surveyed, TMS/TRM implementation occurs in one year or less. Another quarter oforganisations completes implementation in 12 to 17 months, while it takes 18 to 23 months in 11% of companies.Only one in 10 organisations has seen implementation extend to two years or longer.

Working with a TMS over a long period of time helps treasurers understand the processes being automated by thetreasury software solution. That, in turn, can allow for a rapid implementation. The presence of SaaS-based solutionsalso increases the speed of implementation. In most cases, companies implement TMS modules rather than the fullsuite of TMS processes. These modules are integrated with existing applications so the interface speeds the wholeimplementation process as well.

56%

23%

11% 10%

12 months or less 12-17 months 18-23 months 24 months or longer

Figure 7: Duration of TMS/TRM Implementation Project (%)


20/46

20

Western European organisations generally outpace their North America and Asia-Pacific peers in implementingTMS/TRM projects. The vast majority of projects (85%) are completed in 17 months or less in western Europe, with62% occurring in 12 months or less. By comparison, the year-or-less completion rate is 52% for North Americanorganisations and 45% of organisations in the Asia-Pacific region. More than a quarter of North American and Asia-

Pacific organisations indicate implementation lasted 18 months or more (versus just 15% in western Europe).

The geographic factors that drive implementation time may be correlated with the company size (see Table 10). North American companies tend to be larger, and Table 10 shows that larger organisations take a longer time to implementa new system.

Table 9:

Duration of TMS/TRM Implementation Project by Region (%)


12 months or less 62 52 45 12-17 months 23 20 29

18-23 months 6 17 16

24 months or longer 9 12 10

An organisation’s size has a minimal effect on implementation time - at least until the US$10bn annual revenue/sizethreshold is reached. For the largest organisations (annual revenues of at least US$10bn), implementation appears totake longer. Only 42% of such companies implement their TMS/TRM projects in a year or less, compared with over60% for all others. Fully 28% of the largest organisations take 18 months or longer to implement their TMS/TRM.

Implementing a TMS is not limited to just replacing old software. To be effective, the new software must removemanual and inefficient operations and provide assistance to users in their daily execution of business processes.Larger organisations have more complex processes to manage, and these processes increase the time it takes toimplement a new system.

Table 10:

Duration of TMS/TRM Implementation Project by Company Revenue (%)


21/46

21

Challenges

Which o f the fol low ing w as the greatest challenge of your

implementat ion proc ess?

> Committing internal team resources> Overall project organisation and methodology> Project did not match original timing and budget plan> None of the above

For nearly two in five survey respondents, the greatest challenge to TMS implementation is committing a company’sinternal team resources. Overall project organisation and methodology is the second greatest challenge (cited by 28%of respondents), while only 13% indicate that timing and budget planning for the project is the greatest challenge. Onein five respondents reports that none of the three specified challenges is their greatest challenge.

Committing internal team resources requires strong coordination across lines of business and clear responsibility andaccountability metrics in order to gauge results. To achieve these objectives, it is vital to have a strong mandate fromthe company’s top executives, which often is neither possible nor easy to obtain.

Challenges in the overall project organisation and methodology arise when a company is structured in silos ofcompetence and when lines of business are measured with key performance indicators (KPIs) that are notaligned with one another (e.g. procurement measured by savings, sales measured by revenues, treasurymanaged by working capital, etc). Another challenge noted by survey respondents is the situation in which the

implementation project is in the hands of the IT department that traditionally (in the vast majority oforganisations) is not necessarily “politically” (small “p”) strong.

There are always concerns about “mismatches” between planned and executed implementation processes. Butoftentimes such concerns can result in a positive approach to the project. The realisation and acknowledgement ofsuch mismatches can keep a project on track. Thus, those responsible for managing the implementation can detectsigns of potential discrepancies before they actually occur.

39%

28%

13%

20%

Figure 8: Greatest Challenge of TMS Implementation Process (%)

Committing internal team resources

Overall project organisation and

methodology

Project did not match original timing

and budget plan

None of the above


22/46

22

Across regions, respondents are fairly consistent in their views of the greatest challenges to TMS implementation.Committing internal team resources may be an even slightly more pronounced challenge for North Americanorganisations (cited by 44% of North American survey respondents) than for others. Western European respondentsare slightly more inclined than their peers to cite overall project organisation and methodology as the greatest concern

(34%). While still an issue for at least one in 10 across the regions, timing and budget planning challenges aregenerally not the top implementation challenge.

Table 11:

Greatest Challenge of TMS Implementation Process by Region (%)


Committing internal team resources 33 44 39

Overall project organisation and methodology 34 24 29

Project did not match original timing and budget plan 10 14 13 None of the above 23 18 19

When looking at the influence of organisation size on project implementation, timing and budget may be a moreimportant issue for both the smallest (annual revenues of less than US$250m) and largest (annual revenues of atleast US$10bn) organisations rather than mid-sized companies. Respondents from those mid-sized organisationswere also more inclined to cite “none of the above,” indicating an unspecified issue was their organisations’ greatestchallenge. Reassuringly, perhaps, there were no significant challenges.

Table 12:

Greatest Challenge of TMS Implementation Process by Company Size (%)


23/46

23

Solutions Integration

What solut ions d o y ou requi re your TMS to integrate wi th?

> Data feeds> Trading platforms> Confirmation systems> Online banking platforms> Payment solutions> Money market fund (MMF) portals> Reporting tools

The most commonly required solution for integration with TMS is data feeds, cited by 71% of the surveyedorganisations. Payment solutions integration is required by two-thirds of organisations, while reporting tools, onlinebanking platforms, trading platforms, and confirmation systems are each required by over half. Money market fund(MMF) portals, by comparison, are required by only about a third of organisations.

The next phase of TMS moves beyond transactions-based applications to provide treasurers with the necessarysupport to navigate in the turbulent waters of financial and economic crises. Timely and updated data feeds are thefoundation of well-executed payments, reporting and banking operations. All of these categories - data feeds,payments solutions, reporting tools and banking operations - are intertwined. That explains why more than 60% oforganisations report them as required solutions for their TMS.

More sophisticated treasurers are now looking beyond the reliability and availability of data and search forapplications that help them better manage the corporate cash and liquidity. Trading platforms and confirmationsystems serve such a purpose.

32%

54%

57%

60%

62%

67%

71%

Money market fund (MMF) portals

Confirmation systems

Trading platforms

Online banking platforms

Reporting tools

Payment solutions

Data feeds

Figure 9: Required Solutions Integrating with TMS (%)


24/46

24

The required solutions that financial professionals look to integrate with TMS vary a great deal on a regional basis.For western European organisations, data feeds and payment solutions are the most commonly required integrationcapabilities (73%). North American organisations also require data feeds foremost (78%), followed by reporting tools(65%). Reporting tools are also the most common requirement for organisations in the Asia-Pacific region (67%).

Trading platforms, which are commonly required in western Europe (69%) are not as sought after in North America(52%), and even less so in the Asia-Pacific region (36%). Meanwhile, MMF portals are most often required by North

American organisations (43%).

Table 13:

Required Solutions Integrating with TMS by Region (%)


Data feeds 73 78 61

Payment solutions 73 60 58

Reporting tools 58 65 67

Online banking platforms 60 60 45

Trading platforms 69 52 36

Confirmation systems 61 45 45

Money market fund (MMF) portals 28 43 36

Organisation size also shapes the required solutions’ compatibility. For example, trading platforms becomeincreasingly required as company size increases, doubling from 37% for organisations with less than US$250m inannual revenues to 75% among the largest organisations (with at least US$10bn in annual revenues). Online bankingplatforms appear to be slightly more important at the lower end of the market, while confirmation systems may berequired more often up market.

Table 14:

Required Solutions Integrating with TMS by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


25/46

25

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Does your organisation’s TMS interface to an enterprise resourceplanning (ERP) sys tem?

> Yes, and the name of the system is… > No

Consistent with 2011 survey results, the majority of organisations’ TMS can interface with an ERP system, with 61%of survey respondents indicating that their organisations’ systems do so. SAP remains the most popular ERP systemwith Oracle a distant second (see Appendix II).

ERP systems usually provide treasury modules that satisfy most of the functional requirements of basic treasuryoperations (e.g. bank account inquiry, cash planning, cash balances, payment instructions and reconciliation). Whilenot comparable to dedicated TMS solutions in terms of features and functions, the added value of ERP treasurymodules is their native integration with the ERP’s back-office databases such as accounts payable (A/P), accountsreceivable (A/R), charts of accounts, inventories, tax and payroll. In fact, a third-party specialised TMS must integratewith these applications through external ‘adapters’ built by the TMS vendor.

39%

61%

Figure 10: Prevalence of TMS Interface to an ERP System (%)

No, TMS does not interface with the ERP

Yes, TMS interfaces with the ERP


26/46

26

Contrary to 2011 survey results which found North American organisations lagging behind their peers in interfacing toan ERP, this year’s survey shows them leading the trend. Seventy-one percent of North American companiesinterface their TMS to an ERP system, up from the 55% reported in 2011. The prevalence of such interfaces inwestern Europe remained relatively steady at 60% (essentially unchanged from 58% in the previous survey), while

that for Asia-Pacific companies dropped to 44% (from 67%).

Integration of the TMS to the ERP system comes after the initial implementation and use of the TMS. While initiallydata is fed into the TMS almost manually, once users become familiar with the applications they can ask for tighterintegration with the data sources. Since some Asia-Pacific companies appear to be lagging behind those in otherregions in implementing TMS (see Table 5), their level of maturity in using the TMS features does not require, as ofyet, a tight integration with any company’s ERP.

Table 15:

Prevalence of TMS Interface to an ERP System by Region (%)

Western Europe North America Asia-Pacific No 40 29 56

Yes 60 71 44

More than three-quarters of organisations with at least US$10bn in annual revenue interface with their ERP system, apercentage similar to that reported in the 2011 survey results which showed 76% of the same group interfacing withtheir ERP. Frequency of interfacing is relatively uniform across other smaller sized companies.

Table 16:

Prevalence of TMS Interface to an ERP System by Company Revenue (US$ Revenue) (%)


27/46


28/46

28

The number of treasury centres/hubs is fairly consistent across regions with the possible exception of North Americanorganisations, which maintain fewer stand alone systems (36% versus 46% for western Europe and Asia-Pacific).

Table 17:

Number of Treasury Centres/Hubs Linked to TMS by Region (%)


Stand-alone 46 36 46

1 to 4 37 47 33

5 to 8 6 7 8

9 to 11 2 4 5

12 or more 9 7 8

More so than location, company size appears to drive the number of treasury centres/hubs. Among the largestcompanies - those with annual revenues of at least US$10bn - over half have one to four treasury centres/hubs. Bycomparison, smaller organisations tend to have more stand-alone TMS. Surprisingly, organisations on the lower endof the size category tend to have slightly higher numbers of centres/hubs, with 29% of companies with annualrevenues of less than US$250m having five or more (versus one-quarter with annual revenue of at least US$10bn).

Very large corporations tend to have a more diffuse organisation with numerous peripheral subsidiaries. It is notuncommon for treasury operations to be distributed under a centralised co-ordination hub. The central treasury issuesall payment instructions and transaction bank operations, which requires a centralised management of the contactpoints with the online platforms of its banking partners. By comparison, very small companies often cannot afford asystem that centralises operations with their banks. Rather, treasurers at small and medium-sized enterprises (SME)must interface with multiple online banking portals. This may explain why those companies with revenues under

US$250m have many links to their TMS.

Table 18:

Number of Treasury Centres/Hubs Linked to TMS by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


29/46

29

Asset Classes Recorded

What is the port fol io of asset classes reco rded in you r

organis at ion 's TMS?

> Simple (e.g. foreign exchange (FX) spot)> FX, commercial paper (CP), loans, deposits> FX and traded derivatives> Derivatives and commodities> Sophisticated (e.g. complex derivatives)

Nearly four in five organisations record asset classes of foreign exchange (FX), commercial paper, loans and depositsin their TMS, and almost three quarters record simple asset classes. Over half record FX and traded derivatives.

About a third record derivatives and commodities. Sophisticated asset classes such as complex derivatives arerecorded by 16% of organisations via their TMS.

Corporate treasurers need to diversify their portfolio of corporate assets to offset risk factors so often encountered inthe current environment. Liquidity is critical in today’s treasury strategies and excess cash is poorly remuneratedwhen kept in bank deposits. Therefore, treasurers seek higher yield while maintaining sufficiently liquid portfolios byinvesting in asset classes such as FX. The FX capabilities are also needed in a TMS to ensure swift cross-border andmulti-currency payments execution.

16%

34%

52%

74%

79%

Sophisticated (e.g. complex derivatives)

Derivatives and Commodities

FX and traded derivatives

Simple (e.g. foreign exchange (FX) spot)

FX, commercial paper (CP), loans, deposits

Figure 12: Portfolio of Asset Classes in TMS (%)


30/46

30

The percentage of organisations recording simple asset classes is comparable across regions, but differences doexist. Western European organisations are more likely to record FX, commercial paper, leans, deposits, as well as FXand traded derivatives in their TMS than are their North American and Asia-Pacific peers. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacificorganisations are more likely to record sophisticated asset classes in their TMS (23%) versus organisations in

western Europe or North America (12% and 11%, respectively).

Table 19:

Portfolio of Asset Classes in TMS by Region (%)

Western Europe North America Asia Pacific

FX, commercial paper (CP), leans, deposits 86 79 67

Simple (e.g. foreign exchange (FX) spot) 76 79 77

FX and traded derivatives 61 47 41

Derivatives and Commodities 31 37 36

Sophisticated (e.g. complex derivatives) 12 11 23

Recorded asset classes appear to have a positive relationship with organisation size. For example, while FX andtraded derivatives are recorded by less than half of organisations with annual revenues below US$1bn, over two-thirds (69%) of organisations with annual revenues of at least US$10bn record these assets.

One countervailing point is that 21% of organisations with annual revenues below US$250m record sophisticatedasset classes such as complex derivatives - essentially the same percentage as for organisations with at leastUS$10bn in annual revenues (22%).

Table 20:

Portfolio of Asset Classes in TMS by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


31/46

31

Managing Financial Risk

What type of system do you us e to m anage your f inancial r isk?

> All-in-one treasury and risk management (TRM) solution> Traditional TMS Systems with bolt-on risk management solution> ERP solution with bolt-on RMS specialty solution> Spreadsheets> None> Other

The most commonly used system for managing financial risk remains the spreadsheet, used by just over a third oforganisations. An all-in-one TRM solution is a close second, used by 33%, while a traditional TMS with bolt-on riskmanagement solution is used by just 16% of organisations. An ERP solution with a bolt-on risk management system(RMS) speciality solution is used by 7% of organisations. Another 5% of companies use some other financial riskmanagement system (often a combination of TMS and spreadsheets) and 4% use none at all.

34

33

16

7

4

5

Spreadsheets

All-in-one treasury and risk management (TRM) solution

Traditional TMS Systems with bolt-on risk management solution

ERP solution with bolt-on RMS specialty solution

None

Other

Figure 13: Type of System Used to Manage Financial Risk (%)


32/46

32

The all-in-one treasury and risk management (TRM) solution is the most common system used by western Europeanand Asia-Pacific financial professionals to manage risk. In contrast, two in five North American organisations rely onspreadsheets, with another 12% of North American organisations relying on another, unspecified, financial risksystem.

Table 1 above showed that companies in North America tend to be less reliant on commercially available TMSsystems. These systems normally have an embedded module, more or less capable and function-rich, for riskmanagement. The fact that North American treasurers do not prefer off-the-shelf TMS solutions explains why they relyon spreadsheets - more than their peers in other regions - for their risk management practices. Moreover, North

American companies - particularly US companies - only recently have had to comply with regulatory constraints(beginning with those under the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) regulations and even more recently with provisions under theDodd-Frank legislation in the US). Western European companies had to contend with such constraints much earlierand so have refined their skills and requirements for dedicated risk management software modules.

Table 21:

Type of System Used to Manage Financial Risk by Region (%)


Spreadsheets 31 40 33

All-in-one treasury and risk management (TRM) solution 39 22 36

Traditional TMS Systems with bolt-on risk management solution 16 13 17

ERP solution with bolt-on RMS specialty solution 8 6 8

Other 2 12 0

None 4 6 6

Although organisations of different sizes appear similar in their use of systems to manage risk, the largest

organisations are more likely to use an all-in-one TRM system or traditional TMS with risk management solution thanare other companies. They are about half as likely as their peers to rely on spreadsheets. This may, in part, reflect thesize and complexity of the business as much as compliance needs.

Table 22:

Type of System Used to Manage Financial Risk by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


33/46

33

Connecting to Third-party Solutions

How d if f icul t is i t for your cu rrent TMS solu t ion to integrate/connect

to co re th i rd-par ty solut ions ?

> Very difficult: we have not achieved straight-through processing (STP) within our organisation> Somewhat difficult: we can achieve basic STP within our organisation> Not difficult: we have achieved STP within our organisation through deep integration or our core treasury

technologies

Only a third of respondents report that connecting to third-party solutions is “not difficult,” meaning the organisationcould actually achieve straight-through processing (STP) through deep integration in core treasury technologies.

Nearly half (47%) say it is “somewhat difficult,” while one in five indicate it is “very difficult” (i.e. unable to achieveSTP).

This result is not surprising. In particular, the extensive use of license-based TMS (see Figure 4) exacerbates thissituation. It is likely that those organisations that have opted for a SaaS-based TMS have encountered fewerproblems with integration and fall within the 33% (one-third) category.

31%

14%

32%

Figure 14: Level of Difficulty for Integrating TMS

with Third-party Solutions (%)

Very difficult: we have not achieved straight-

through processing (STP) within our

organisation

Somewhat difficult: we can achieve basic STP

within our organisation

Not difficult: we have achieved STP within our

organisation through deep integration or our

core treasury technologies


34/46

34

The difficulty of connecting to third-party solutions appears to be felt more acutely in the Asia-Pacific region, whereone-third of respondents rate it “very difficult” versus a comparison figure in the middle-teens for North American and

western Europe-based organisations. The relatively low maturity of TMS adoption seen for Asia-Pacific (see Table 1)may entail less knowledge of the underlying business processes, which makes it more difficult to integrate systems.

Table 23:

Connecting to Third-party Solutions by Region (%)

Western

Europe North

America Asia-

Pacific

Very difficult: we have not achieved straight-through processing (STP) within

our organisation 17 14 33

Somewhat difficult: we can achieve basic STP within our organisation 45 52 44

Not difficult: we have achieved STP within our organisation through deep

integration or our core treasury technologies 38 34 22

Although a majority of organisations rate connection to third-party solutions as at least “somewhat difficult” the largestorganisations appear to be less likely to have a “very difficult” experience. Only about one in 10 face this level ofdifficulty, which is roughly double the proportion of their smaller sized peers.

The larger organisations are typically the ones that adopted a TMS earlier than did the smaller organisations (seeTable 10). Therefore their acquaintance with the system and related processes are likely to have reached a level ofconfidence sufficient to avoid ‘bad surprises’ and difficult experiences.

Table 24:Connecting to Third-party Solutions by Company Size (US$ Revenue) (%)


35/46

35

Ease of Upgrade

How easy is i t for your solut ion to be upgraded to address market

requ iremen ts (i .e. SEPA, IFRS convergence/regu lat ions ), repo rt ing

and wo rk f lows?

> Very easy> Easy> Satisfactory> Difficult> Very difficult

Respondents give a mixed review of the ease of upgrading their solution to meet market requirements, reporting andworkflows. Nearly half (49%) rate the level of ease as “satisfactory”- the rating in the middle of a five-point scale.Twenty-six percent rate it “easy” or “very easy,” while another quarter rate it “difficult” or “very difficult”.

One of the major reasons why companies today decide to implement/upgrade a TMS system is the need to complywith risk and regulatory requirements. TMS have become strategic assets to ensure compliance and riskmanagement. To comply with these requirements and increase adoption, TMS solution vendors are making their riskmanagement and compliance modules easier to integrate.

10%

16%

49%

21%

4%

Figure 15: Ease of Upgrading Solution to Meet

Market Requirements, Reporting and Workflows (%)

Very easy

Easy

Satisfactory

Difficult

Very difficult


36/46

36

Roughly equivalent percentages of respondents rate the ease of updating their solutions as “easy” or “very easy,” butfewer from the Asia-Pacific region indicate the level of ease is satisfactory and 32% rate it “difficult”, which is morethan peers in North America and western Europe.

Table 25:Ease of Upgrading Solution to Address Market Requirements, Reporting and Workflows by Region (%)


Very easy 11 3 14

Easy 15 21 11

Satisfactory 50 50 43

Difficult 23 17 32

Very difficult 1 9 0

Once again, large organisations appear to have a better TMS experience. In terms of upgrading their solutions, only16% rate it “difficult” or “very difficult” - a considerably lower percentage than that reported by smaller organisations.The smallest companies have a more variable experience altogether, with some finding it easy (32%), some difficult(28%), but a majority (41%) ranking it in the middle as satisfactory.

Table 26:

Ease of Upgrading Solution to Address Market Requirements, Reporting and Workflows by Company Size (%)


37/46

37

Benefit to Organisation

What has been the strong est area of imp rovement for you r

organisat ion sinc e you implemented y our TMS (or TRM) solut ion?

> Improved process control and compliance> Improved reporting/analytical intelligence to support decision-making> Increased operational efficiency> Increase visibility to all risk exposures> None of the above

For nearly two in five organisations, the strongest area of organisational improvement from implementation of TMS (orTRM) is increased operational efficiency. Twenty-eight percent cite improved process control and compliance as thegreatest organisational improvement. Another 18% indicate the greatest benefit is improved reporting/analyticalintelligence to support decision-making. Nine percent say the greatest benefit is increased visibility to risk exposures.

The transaction-based nature of a TMS is confirmed by the results of this question. Treasurers seeking to reducemanual operations and improve efficiency rely on a TMS as a natural supporting tool. Treasury offices are requestedto ”do more with less” and the number of activities, particularly those tied to risk management, reporting, andregulatory compliance, require staff resources to be freed from routine, manual and time-consuming activities.

While organisations in western Europe and North America appear to have a similar views of the greatestorganisational improvement from implementation of TMS, those in the Asia-Pacific region tell a slightly different story.For financial professionals in this region, improved process control and compliance is the most frequently citedorganisational improvement (by 32%). Increased operational efficiency is the benefit that predominates elsewhere(43% in western Europe and North America versus 29% in the Asia-Pacific region).

7%

9%

18%

28%

38%

None of the above

Increase visibility to all risk exposures

Improved reporting/analytical intelligence to

support decision-making

Improved process control and compliance

Increased operational efficiency

Figure 16: Greatest Organisational Improvement

Through Implementation of TMS Solution (%)


38/46

38

Table 27:

Greatest Organisational Improvement from Implementation of TMS Solution by Region (%)

Western

Europe North

America Asia-

Pacific

Increased operational efficiency 43 43 29

Improved process control and compliance 31 25 32

Improved reporting/analytical intelligence to support decision-making 13 19 23

Increase visibility to all risk exposures 7 6 3

None of the above 6 6 13

The largest organisations tend to report the greatest benefit from implementation of TMS as improved process controland compliance, while smaller ones are more likely to cite increased operational efficiency.

Table 28:

Greatest Organisational Improvement from Implementation of TMS Solution by Company Size (%)


39/46

39

Key Processes

Please rate the effect iveness o f yo ur organisat ion's TMS at each of

the fo llowing :

> Transaction capture> Business intelligence> Forecasting> Risk management> Analytics> Reporting>

Cash management> Debt management> Investment management> Derivatives processing

Financial professionals give mixed reviews for the effectiveness of their organisations’ TMS on a series of businessprocesses, ranging from the highest rating for transaction capture to the lowest for business intelligence. Areas whereover half of respondents rate their TMS as “very good” or “good” on a five-point scale are transaction capture, cashmanagement, debt management, reporting and investment management. Fewer than half rate their TMS asfavourably on derivatives processing, forecasting, analytics, risk management, and business intelligence.

These results are consistent with those in Figure 16. Transaction capture, cash management, debt management and

reporting are very much oriented to improve operational efficiency. The remaining categories are more analytical andthus related to domains that treasury is only now beginning to investigate and control. It is likely that the operationalcategories will lag behind in the near future (i.e. three to five years).

35%

44%

44%

45%

48%

50%

58%

65%

74%

79%

Business intelligence

Risk management

Analytics

Forecasting

Derivatives processing

Investment management

Reporting

Debt management

Cash management

Transaction capture

Figure 17: Rating Effectiveness of TMS by Category

(% "very good" or "good" on five-point scale)


40/46

40

North American organisations rate their TMS as highly effective on cash management and transaction capture (89% and 85%top-two score, respectively). Asia-Pacific respondents rate their TMS far lower on cash management (47% top-two score out offive), as well as investment management (37%). Western Europeans tend to rate their TMS as being more effective on debtmanagement than their peers (70% versus 54% and 63% in North America and Asia-Pacific, respectively).

Table 29:

Rating Effectiveness of TMS Solution by Category by Region (%)

Western Europe North America Asia Pacific

Transaction capture 79 85 73

Cash management 75 89 47

Debt management 70 54 63

Reporting 55 62 40

Investment management 47 57 37

Derivatives processing 47 45 47

Forecasting 40 53 37

Analytics 44 37 40

Risk management 47 31 43

Business Intelligence 30 40 33

With the exception of organisations with annual revenues of less than US$1bn, respondents from each size cohort ofcompanies report transaction capture and cash management as the two most effective TMS categories. For thisparticular group, debt management appears to be rated more highly than cash management, which comes in third. Thelargest organisations tend to rate TMS effectiveness at cash management more highly than do smaller ones (84% top-two score out of five).

Table 30:

Rating Effectiveness of TMS Solution by Category by Company Size (%)


41/46

41

Areas for Improvement

What addi t ional funct ionali ty wo uld b r ing the biggest improvement

to your organisation’s TMS? (Select all that apply)

> Electronic bank account management (eBAM)> Personal digital signatures> Commodity hedging> Cash flow forecasting> Integration/interoperability> Trading> Risk management> SWIFT> Other

When prompted to consider what functionality would bring the biggest improvement to their organisation’s TMS, theviews of financial professionals are far from unanimous. A sizable share (22%) indicates cash flow forecasting, whichis the top-rated choice across the board, would bring the most improvement. Seventeen percent indicateintegration/interoperability, as well as electronic bank account management (eBAM). Fifteen percent choose riskmanagement and 11% choose connectivity to SWIFTNet. Another 7% have other ideas, while still smallerpercentages select commodity hedging, personal digital signatures and trading.

Most of the functionalities listed are already part of TMS solutions, so these results suggest that basic TMS is meetingmost organisations’ needs and there is not one vital improvement needed. These results also inform the resultspresented in Figure 3. It can be expected that the more treasurers will adopt commercially available TMS, the more

expectations will be set and therefore more functionalities beyond those listed in Figure 18 will be required.

2%

3%

5%

7%

11%

15%

17%

17%

22%

Trading

Personal digital signatures

Commodity hedging

Other

Connectivity to SWIFTNet

Risk management

Electronic bank account management (eBAM)

Integration/interoperability

Cash flow forecasting

Figure 18: Additional Functionality that Would Bring Greatest TMS

Improvement


42/46

42

While survey respondents from all regions see a need for greater functionality in terms of cash flow forecasting, thosefrom the Asia-Pacific region see relatively more demand for integration/interoperability features as well as riskmanagement improvement.

Table 31:Most Needed TMS Functionality for Greatest Improvement by Region (%)

Western

Europe North

America Asia-Pacific

Cash flow forecasting 21 26 25

Integration/interoperability 17 16 29

Electronic bank account management (eBAM) 20 14 14

Risk management 15 14 21

Connectivity to SWIFTNet 15 12 4

Other 6 7 7 Commodity hedging 2 7 0

Personal digital signatures 4 0 0

Trading 1 5 0

The demand for improvement to cash flow forecasting functionality is evident across organisational size. Largeorganisations are relatively more interested in integration/interoperability improvements as well as connectivity toSWIFTNet. Interestingly, large organisations do not see a need for improvement in risk management while this ishighly rated as a needed improvement by many organisations at the lower end of the market.

Table 32:Most Needed TMS Functionality for Greatest Improvement by Company Size (%)


43/46

43

Conclusion

A treasury management system (TMS) supports the management of a treasurer’s dai ly duties through a set ofapplications that encompass bank account reconciliation to cash balance, execution of payments (e.g. forsupplies, wages and taxes), liquidity distribution and reallocation, and reporting for regulatory compliance andperformance assessment.

While TMS have traditionally provided automated functionalities to handle transactional processes (e.g. bankstatements, payments and cash balances), today’s treasurers want systems that support them in managing data andturning that data into added-value information for smart decision-making in their organisations. Treasurers are undersignificant pressure from their executives and boards to provide updated information on their companies’ cashpositions and financial health in a matter of hours, if not faster. In the current stressed economic environment,treasurers have to do much more with fewer resources.

Treasurers seeking to reduce manual operations and improve efficiency rely on a TMS as a natural supporting tool.Treasury offices are requested to “do more with less” and the number of activities, particularly those tied to riskmanagement, reporting and regulatory compliance, require staff resources to be freed from routine, manual and time-consuming activities.

The views of the majority of respondents in this year’s gtnews Treasury Management System survey validate theimportance of adopting a TMS to handle treasury operations in a more structured and automated fashion. Still, aminority of survey participants whose organisations do not plan to introduce such a system in the foreseeable futureprovides some evidence that not all see the benefits or the need. The current economic environment may becompelling some of them to wait before taking action.

Implementing a TMS is not limited to just replacing old software. To be effective, the new software must removemanual and inefficient operations and provide assistance to users in their daily execution of business processes. Forover half of the organisations surveyed, TMS/TRM implementation occurs in one year or less. Another quarter oforganisations complete implementation in 12 to 17 months, while 11% take 18 to 23 months. Only one in 10organisations has seen implementation extend to two years or longer.

For nearly two in five survey respondents, the greatest challenge to TMS implementation is committing internal teamresources, which requires strong co-ordination between lines of business and clear responsibility and accountabilitymetrics in order to measure results. To achieve these objectives, it is vital to have a strong mandate from thecompany’s top executives, which is not always possible nor easy to obtain.

The next phase of TMS is moving beyond transactions-based applications in order to provide treasurers with thenecessary support to navigate in the turbulent waters of current economic and financial challenges. Timely andupdated data feeds are the foundation of well-executed payments, reporting and banking operations. Moresophisticated treasurers are now looking beyond the reliability and availability of data and are searching forapplications that help them better manage the corporate cash and liquidity.

Cash-flow forecasting is the top-rated choice across all respondents when they are asked which functionality wouldbring the biggest improvement to their organisation’s TMS. Integration/interoperability and eBAM were in the top threefunctionality areas for improvement.

Most of the key functionalities are already part of TMS solutions, which suggests that basic TMS is meeting mostorganisations’ needs and perhaps no urgent improvement is needed. Still, as more treasurers adopt commerciallyavailable TMS, the higher the expectations will be and therefore greater functionality will be required in the future.


44/46

44

Appendix I: Name of ERP

Accpac (2)

Agresso

All

AXAPTA

BBM

CODA Dream

ComplianceMaster

ECC

ERP

Flexcube

Home grown GL

Hyperion

IFS, Visma

in-house

In-house made ERP

INTEGRITY

JD EOne and JBA

JDE (2)

Lawson's

Microsoft Dynamics (2)

MOVEX

Multiple globally - Oracle, SAP, some localERPs

navision

Oracle (25)

Oracle financials

Oracle Financials and HFM

Oracle R12

oracle the best of

Oracle, SAP, others

PeopleSoft (7)

Peoplesoft (Oracle)

propriety & SAP

QUALIAC

SAP (82)

SAP and oracle

SAP B1

SAP ECC

SAP ERP (2)

SAP FI

SAP, Oracle

SAP, Peoplesoft

SSA

Stealth/Proj

SUN (2)

Swift


45/46


46/46

gtnews

3rd Floor Northumberland House155-157 Great Portland StreetLondonW1W 6QPUK

Gtnews TMS Survey Report 2012

Documents

Transcript of Gtnews TMS Survey Report 2012