Reports 2016 Vendor Perception Report

2016 CTRM Vendor Perceptions Study Procurement Data About 27% of the respondents answering the question suggested that they would procure a new CTRM over the next 24 months; however, 44% said that they would not be procuring in the next 24 months. Almost one third were unsure of their procurement plans (Figure 24). Figure 24: Procurement Plans We also asked the respondents to rank a set of buying criteria using a scale from “critical” to “unimportant”, with the results shown in Figure 25 below. Physical and Financial Commodity Support were the most highly ranked followed by Market Price/Risk Support and Quality Vendor Support. Comprehensive Analytics, being Supplied by a Top Vendor or being Available in the Cloud were the least critical feature/functions desired by buyers. No 44% Yes within 24 mos 27% Not Sure 29% Given the role and increasing importance that consulting firms play in CTRM system selection, it is informative to measure their responses separately from the end-users when it comes to buying criteria. While the consultants and SI’s broadly share the same opinions as the total respondent group, a clear difference is that Quality Implementation Resource Availability ranks significantly higher for those consultants. Multi-currency Capabilities and Overall Architecture also rank slightly higher in the consultant group, with Physical Logistics ranked higher by the overall respondent group (Figure 25 & 25a). Figure 25 - Buying Criteria; All Respondents Physical Commodity Support Financial Commodity Support Market Price/Risk Support Quality Vendor Support Physical Logistics Multi-Currency Multi-Commodity Available at Competitive Price Quality Implementation Resources Available Credit Risk Support Regulatory Compliance Support Modern architecture Ability to personalise UI Comprehensive anlystics Supplied By Top Vendor Available in the Cloud 0% Critical © 2016 Commodity Technology Advisory LLC 10% 20% Important 30% 40% Nice to Have 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unimportant 21

Reports 2016 Vendor Perception Report | Page 21