Thursday, June 6, 2013

More on Textura, soon to complete its IPO (Textura mentions its competition)


On Sunday, June 2nd, I posted a note on the blog that Textura (NYSE: TXTR) was set to complete its IPO on Tuesday June 2nd.  Evidently, the IPO kick-off date was changed to today.  But, don’t be surprised if the IPO kick-off date is moved to next week.

It’s very interesting that firms such as iSqFt and SmartBidNet and Newforma are mentioned as competitors but there’s no mention, at all, of firms in the reprographics industry who offer solutions that compete with Textura’s software products.

Very brief description as to how Textura describes its business:

We are a leading provider of on-demand business collaboration software to the commercial construction industry. Our solutions are focused on facilitating collaboration between owners/developers, general contractors and subcontractors.

From a page on NASDAQ’s web-site, here’s how Textura describes its competition:

The intensity and nature of our competition varies significantly across our different solutions. We face competition both from point solution providers, including traditional software vendors and other on-demand software vendors, and from enterprise resource planning and project management solution providers that may address several functional elements of our solutions, but that may not be designed specifically for the construction market. We also compete with internally-developed and maintained technology solutions.

Our current principal competitors include:

• CPM. We face limited competition due in large part, we believe, to the complexity of the required solution, the specific needs of the construction industry and the absence of third-party solutions that provide our lien waiver functionality. Competitive solutions that may address part of our functional capabilities include GC Pay in the North American market and in Australia; enterprise resource planning solutions both specialized to the construction industry such as Viewpoint, the Sage family of products, CMiC Open Enterprise and eCMS and other non-specialized solutions, such as JD Edwards Enterprise One, and various solutions offered by Oracle and SAP; and document management solutions such as Aconex.

• Submittal Exchange. We face competition from several project management solution providers, in particular from those that are specialized in the construction industry. Such competitors include Meridian Systems, Newforma and Procore Technologies.

• GradeBeam. We face competition from other invitation-to-bid systems for commercial construction, including iSqFt and SmartBidNet. Certain project management and enterprise resource planning solutions also have invitation-to-bid or bid management functionality.

• PQM. PQM is most often being used to replace paper-based processes or to establish prequalification processes that do not currently exist. Available alternatives include in-house solutions using online form submission tools, invitation-to-bid systems and vendor review and verification services.

• Greengrade. We face competition from other LEED submission management technology solutions including LoraxPro and GreenWizard. Greengrade also faces competition from services provided by many specialized consulting firms, architecture firms and construction management consultancies.

 * In addition, PlanSwift competes with several take-off and estimating solution providers including On Center Software, eTakeoff and Cloud Takeoff; trade-specific take-off solutions such as ConEst (for electrical trades); and the estimating capabilities or modules of enterprise resource planning solutions such as Viewpoint, the Sage family of products, CMiC Open Enterprise and eCMS.

The principal competitive factors in our industry include solution functionality and scope, level of integration with other enterprise systems, ease of implementation and use, performance, security, scalability and reliability of service, brand, reputation, domain expertise, relationships within the construction industry, and financial resources of the provider. We believe total cost of ownership to be a lesser factor for most general contractors; however, cost is a significant factor in competing for subcontractors. We believe that we compete favorably with our competitors on the basis of these factors. However, some of our existing or potential competitors may have greater financial, technical, marketing and other resources, and there is no assurance that we will be able to continue to compete effectively.

No comments:

Post a Comment