Executive Summary

Manhattan Associates, a supply chain software company had an amazing record of 18

straight years of growth and profitability, growing to $337 million in revenue by 2007.
Along with Business Objects, Kronos, Microsoft, and SAP, it was one of only five
software companies in the world that had record of ten or more years of continuous
growth and profitability.
Then came the year 2008 which did not bode well for Manhattan, it’s revenues dipped
for the first time in the history of the company and then it dipped further in 2009 by 26%.

This report first attempts to look at the strategies which helped Manhattan compile it’s
amazing record of growth for so many continuous years and then it tries to find out the
reason for it sharp decline in the recent past.
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................1
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
Company Introduction.................................................................................................................................4
Company History:....................................................................................................................................5
Solutions Offered By Manhattan.................................................................................................................9
Competitors...............................................................................................................................................11
Direct Competitor Financial Comparison...............................................................................................11
Software Companies Ranked By Sales...................................................................................................12
Best of the Breed Players:.....................................................................................................................13
JDA Strength and weaknesses.............................................................................................................14
Gartner Magic Quadrant for Warehouse...............................................................................................15
Gartner’s view about Manhatttan.........................................................................................................16
Gartner’s view about RedPrairie............................................................................................................19
Summary of capability comparison.......................................................................................................21
Financial Position in 2006......................................................................................................................21
Financial Position in 2009......................................................................................................................22
What had worked well for Manhattan in the past.....................................................................................22
What Went Wrong then............................................................................................................................24
What lies ahead.........................................................................................................................................26
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................26
References.................................................................................................................................................27
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................27
Table 1: Revenue and Income statement..............................................................................................27
Table 2: Balance Sheet for last 10 years................................................................................................28
Table 3: Income statement 10 years......................................................................................................29
Table 4: Cash flow Statements for last 5 years......................................................................................29
Manhattan Associates Company Principles...........................................................................................31
Manhattan Associates Technology partners-........................................................................................32
Introduction
This study aims to find out the reasons behind Manhattan’s sudden reversal in growth
while its competitors market share grew. Late 2008 was when the effect of global
economic meltdown started becoming visible- but it was not the first time Manhattan
was witnessing the downturn – in 2001 during the dot com burst it weathered the storm
pretty well and in fact its revenue grew by close to 13%; actually during the recessionary
times the spending on product to improve the supply chain efficiency actually grows as
companies could not afford to have their supply chain in disarray.
So what is the reason which prevented Manhattan to leverage the situation to best of its
advantage, what prevented it to foresee the market trend?

The answers to these questions are very important if Manhattan has to go back to its
earlier growth trajectory.

I have spent close to eight years in Manhattan and through this report I want to highlight
how even good performing companies too can make blunders and deviate from its own
chosen path. I have tried to present the analysis through publically available literature
and data and tried to avoid giving any insights from my personal experience.

The report will look at the company’s background- its guiding principles- what made it so
successful, will look at the industry in general and its niche competitors in particular.
Financial data available from yahoo finance, msn finance or company’s website is used
in the report.
Research reports available from market researchers like Gartner and Arcweb are also
used in the analysis.
Company Introduction

Manhattan Associates, Inc.

Address:
2300 Windy Ridge Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
U.S.A.
http://www.manhattanassociates.com

Statistics:
Public Company
Incorporated: 1990 as Manhattan Associates Software, L.L.C.
Stock Exchanges: NASDAQ
Ticker Symbol: MANH
NAIC: 511210 Software Publishers

Company Perspectives:
Large or small, global or local, established or newcomer ... if you're in business today, you're
under pressure to be efficient, cost-effective and competitively astute. The old days of going out
to the warehouse, picking products off the shelves and shipping customers a month's worth of
inventory are gone. Today, advanced capabilities, automated operations, accelerated
responsiveness and a rapid return on investment differentiate those who succeed from those who
do not.

Key Dates:
1990: Manhattan Associates Software, L.L.C. is formed in Manhattan Beach, California.
1995: The company relocates to Atlanta, Georgia.
1998: The company completes its initial public offering of stock, becoming Manhattan
Associates, Inc. in the process.
2000: Manhattan acquires Intrepa, L.L.C.
2002: Manhattan acquires Logistics.com, Inc.
2003: Manhattan acquires Streamsoft LLC-Certain Assets from Streamsoft LLC
2004:Manhattan Associates Inc acquires Avere Inc 
2005:Manhattan Associates Inc acquires Evant Inc 

Principal Subsidiaries: Manhattan Associates Software, L.L.C.; Manhattan Associates, Ltd.;

Manhattan Associates Europe, B.V.; Manhattan Associates, Pty Ltd.; Manhattan Associates
(India) Development Centre Private Limited.
Principal Competitors: JDA; RedPrairie Corporation; SAP AG; Oracle; Catalyst International,
Inc. ;
Company History:

Manhattan Associates, Inc. helps companies navigate their products through the supply chain,
providing technology-based solutions to improve the efficiency of the distribution and
transportation of goods. Manhattan's software, hardware, and services coordinate the flow of
information among manufacturers, distributors, retailers, suppliers, transportation providers, and
consumers. The company operates in eight markets, serving nearly 1,000 clients in the consumer
goods, food, government, high-technology, industrial, life sciences, retail, and third-party
logistics industries. Manhattan operates internationally through offices in the United Kingdom,
The Netherlands, Germany, and Asia, generating nearly a fifth of total sales from its overseas
business.

Origins

As the 1980s began, the U.S. textile industry faced a daunting challenge. Global competition had
intensified, with many foreign manufacturers selling their apparel for prices that undercut the
capabilities of most domestic producers. The U.S. manufacturers needed to find a way to beat
back the ever encroaching presence of overseas competitors. They needed a solution that would
enable them to compete effectively. The problem was widespread and it was growing worse,
prompting the industry as a whole to take action. Midway through the decade, studies were
begun that brought together experts from a number of different fields. The studies were part of
an industrywide initiative focusing on the supply chain, the various steps a product took to get
from a manufacturer to a customer. The national undertaking hoped to lower the cost of goods
sold by increasing the efficiency of the supply chain. "Quick Response" was the result of the
inquiry.

Quick Response relied on technology to give U.S. clothing manufacturers an advantage over
foreign competition. Through the use of technology, the flow of information among
manufacturers, distributors, and retailers was improved substantially, allowing retailers to inform
manufacturers and distributors of what merchandise they needed more rapidly. Manufacturers
and distributors, for their part, were able to restock retailers more efficiently. The reduction in
idle inventory enabled textile product retailers to reduce the cost of goods sold, making the
industrywide initiative a success.

Manhattan's four founders were involved in the studies that produced Quick Response. The
founding group was led by Alan J. Dabbiere, the individual who would lead the company during
its first decade of existence. Dabbiere participated in Quick Response pilot projects as part of his
job at Kurt Salmon Associates, a management consulting firm he joined in 1986. Kurt Salmon,
which specialized in consumer products manufacturing and retailing in its consultancy work,
served as an instrumental contributor in developing the blueprint for Quick Response and its
counterpart, Efficient Consumer Response, a system for improving efficiency in the food and
grocery industry's supply chain. Dabbiere represented an integral component of Kurt Salmon's
efforts. He was joined in founding Manhattan by three technology-oriented executives from
Infosys Technologies Limited, an India-based software development company founded in 1981.
When Infosys opened its first international office in the United States in 1987, Deepak
Raghavan, Deepak M.J. Rao, and Ponnambalam Muthiah joined the company. In the years
preceding the formation of Manhattan, Raghavan and Muthiah both worked as senior software
engineers, specializing in the design and use of information systems for the apparel
manufacturing industry. Rao, who performed the duties of an assistant project manager at
Infosys, specialized in the design and use of information systems for the banking industry.

The four founders gathered in Manhattan Beach, California, as the new decade began. Their
interest in enhancing supply-chain execution centered on one part of the complex process that
carried a product from manufacturer to customer: the warehouse. They believed that distribution
centers offered an ideal way to demonstrate what information technology solutions could deliver
in efficiency to the supply chain. Manhattan Associates Software, L.L.C. was formed in 1990 to
bring their idea to the marketplace. Dabbiere became the new company's president and chief
executive officer, Raghavan its chief technology officer, Rao a vice-president, and Muthiah a
vice-president.

PkMS Software Driving Growth in the 1990s

Manhattan was a new company in a new field, one in which the company would come to
dominate. Its first software product aided customers in complying with the shipping-label
specifications of retailers. Manhattan signed its first client in 1991, beginning a steady march that
saw the company develop quickly. The centerpiece of the company's business was a warehouse
management system, Manhattan's proprietary PkMS, which was developed not long after the
company was founded. PkMS, a flexible, modular software system that controlled the efficient
movement of goods through the supply chain, drove Manhattan's physical and financial growth
throughout the 1990s. By using PkMS, a company could manage the checklist of tasks assigned
to a distribution center. PkMS managed receiving stock, locating stock, picking stock, verifying
orders, and packing and shipping product, orchestrating, in an efficient manner, the complex
dance of packages moving in and out of a warehouse. The benefits to the customer were as
numerous as the number of tasks that fell under the purview of PkMS. Inventory turnover
increased, inventory accuracy improved, response time decreased, labor productivity increased,
and customer service improved, yielding advances in efficiency that translated into reduced costs
and increased profits for the customer.

Manhattan's solutions resolved some of the most pressing problems challenging U.S. textile
manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The idea that began in Manhattan Beach flowered into
a growing financial enterprise. By 1993, Manhattan had developed into a $3.3 million company.
The following year, when it signed its 50th customer to license PkMS, the company nearly
doubled its sales, generating $6.5 million in revenue. In 1995, a year that marked the arrival of
the company's 25th employee, Manhattan relocated from the beach that gave it its name and
settled in Atlanta, Georgia. Sales during the year leaped upward again, reaching $11.2 million.
After a modest gain to $14.4 million in 1996, Manhattan recorded a remarkable surge in
financial growth in 1997, more than doubling its sales to $32.4 million. By this point, the
Dabbiere-led venture was contemplating its debut on Wall Street.

By the end of 1997, Manhattan had made its mark in the warehouse management system sector
of supply-chain execution. The company added 56 new clients during the year, giving it a
customer base of more than 250 companies. These customers, who reflected Manhattan's
diversification beyond the apparel industry, included members of the consumer products and the
foodservice and grocery industries. Calvin Klein, Dean Foods, Mikasa, SEIKO Corporation of
America, and Patagonia were PkMS licensees, each finding rewards in using Manhattan's
software system to manage their distribution centers. The company's payroll swelled, particularly
in 1997, when the number of Manhattan employees shot up from 88 to more than 200. In
October 1997, Dabbiere made room for the robust growth of the company by announcing that
Manhattan was relocating its headquarters to another facility in Atlanta that was more than three
times the size of the company's existing headquarters. To Dabbiere and his colleagues, the
strident growth of the company suggested more than a move to larger quarters. The time had
come for Manhattan's end as a limited liability company and its debut as a publicly traded
company.

Initial Public Offering of Stock in 1998

Dabbiere and his team prepared for Manhattan's initial public offering (IPO) of stock, desiring to
take advantage of the company's strong position. Manhattan's PkMS was the only warehouse
management system designed exclusively for manufacturers and distributors who shipped to
retail and grocery. After acquiring Performance Analysis Corporation, whose software helped
determine the optimal storage location for inventory within a distribution center, Manhattan filed
for an IPO in the spring of 1998. Manhattan Associates, Inc. was formed to acquire the assets of
Manhattan Associates Software, L.L.C., leading to the sale of 3.5 million shares of stock on the
NASDAQ at $15 per share.

Dabbiere quickly made advances after Manhattan's IPO. In July 1998, the company announced
the formation of a subsidiary in the United Kingdom, an office near Heathrow Airport in
Stockley Park. By this point, the company already enjoyed a European customer base, serving
Revlon, Warnaco, Ocular Sciences, and Venator Group's European Footlocker. The subsidiary
was formed to provide better support to Manhattan's existing clients and to cultivate additional
European customers. The year of Manhattan's public debut also saw it become the first company
to guarantee ongoing compliance with the stringent and specific guidelines demanded by the
leading 100 retailers in the United States. Dabbiere also tapped into one of the strengths of his
former employer in 1998, agreeing in September to acquire DCMS, the Distribution Center
Management Systems software product developed by Kurt Salmon. By the end of the year,
Manhattan boasted more than 350 customers operating in more than 750 sites worldwide.

As Manhattan concluded its first decade of business, the company was demonstrating surging
growth. Fruit of the Loom became the 100th customer to install PkMS in 1999, representing a 56
percent increase from the previous year in the number of new clients secured. To help manage
this growth, which saw sales increase to $85.2 million for the year, Dabbiere looked for outside
help, announcing the appointment of Richard M. Haddrill as president and chief executive
officer in October 1999. Dabbiere took the title of chairman, leaving the day-to-day management
of the company to Haddrill, who had spent the previous three years serving as president and
chief executive officer of Powerhouse Technologies, Inc., a $250 million diversified gaming
technology company.
Under Haddrill's leadership, Manhattan celebrated its tenth anniversary and plotted its course for
the new decade ahead. Late in the company's anniversary year, it acquired a Mishawaka,
Indiana-based company named Intrepa L.L.C., a developer of transportation and distribution
applications with more than 100 employees and seven offices in the United States. Intrepa served
more than 250 customers in the healthcare, automotive, publishing, and industrial wholesale
industries, counting Nissan, Dupont Merck, Gerber Products, and Novartis as some of its better-
known clientele. The $30 million transaction was expected to add between $14 million and $18
million to Manhattan's revenue volume, giving the company more than 750 customers in 11
markets. "Intrepa LLC's current technology, broad solution footprint, deep domain expertise, and
an impressive client list were key drivers behind our decision to acquire Intrepa," Haddrill
remarked in a December 2000 interview with Manufacturing Systems.

The early years of the decade marked a serious decline in technology spending, making for a
bleak start to the 21st century for many software companies. Manhattan was insulated somewhat
from the downturn because of its focus on warehousing. In tight economic times, companies
could not afford to have their warehouses in disarray. "Warehouse software is a less
discretionary purchase than other areas of technology," an analyst explained in a December 3,
2001 interview with Investor's Business Daily. "Customers tend to invest in such software when
they have some kind of significant problem. It's not just a matter of getting to the next level of
performance." Manhattan's advantageous position as a warehouse specialist in the broader
supply-chain software field helped the company record impressive growth while others suffered
from the downturn. The company expanded into Germany and France in 2001, ending the year
with more than $138 million in revenue. Manhattan's focus on warehousing shielded it from the
worst of a recessive economy, but the company's niche in the supply-chain software field also
was threatening to become a detriment. The dynamics of the supply-chain execution industry
were changing. Manhattan, the "king of warehouse management," according to the January 17,
2003 issue of Investor's Business Daily, needed to widen the scope of its kingdom.

A More Comprehensive Manhattan Emerging in 2002

Competition within the supply-chain execution industry was taking on a new dimension.
Companies larger than Manhattan, competitors such as Manugistics Group Inc., I2 Technologies
Inc., and SAP AG, were encroaching on Manhattan's warehouse niche. Each of the three
companies offered a wider range of business software than Manhattan, offering their customers a
more comprehensive solution to problems along the supply chain. Haddrill needed to extend
Manhattan's reach, and in November 2002 he announced a deal that expanded the services the
company could provide to its customers. Manhattan agreed to acquire Logistics.com, Inc., a
Burlington, Massachusetts-based logistics planning and execution firm. Logistics.com developed
software to help trucking and rail companies handle routing and planning, offering three
products: OptiManage, a comprehensive transportation management solution for shippers;
OptiBid, a procurement solution for shippers; and OptiYield, a decision support and optimization
solution for carriers. The acquisition of Logistics.com moved Manhattan out of the warehouse,
giving the company the capability to address problems in both distribution and transportation.

As Manhattan reshaped itself from a warehouse management software provider to a broader

supply-chain execution provider, changes in leadership set the stage for the company's future. In
May 2003, Dabbiere announced he was leaving the company to devote more time to his family.
Less than a year later, Haddrill announced he was leaving as well, which led to the appointment
of Peter F. Sinisgalli as chief executive officer in July 2004. Under Sinisgalli's stewardship,
Manhattan was expected to continue expanding its involvement along the supply chain, as the
company endeavored to be not only the king of the warehouse but a dominant player in the
supply-chain execution industry as well.

Solutions Offered By Manhattan

Platform Thinking™: The Common Approach for Uncommon Supply Chain Performance

Manhattan’s point of view is that a platform-based approach is the best way to optimize supply
chains and promote innovation, long-term growth and enduring market advantage. Platform
Thinking drives our supply chain principles, practices and solutions and makes possible
economies of scale and efficiencies that bolster profitability, interactions that optimize service,
and business insight that underlies uncommon competitive advantage.

Manhattan SCOPE®: Supply Chain Optimization - Planning through Execution is the

embodiment of Platform Thinking. Manhattan SCOPE enables "whole chain awareness"-the
power to see and act in ways that factor in storage, labor and scheduling constraints;
transportation capacity, routing plans and fuel cost parameters; and inventory planning and
buying decisions-whether real-time or ahead of time-so that company performance is optimized
every time.

Manhattan SCOPE is expressly designed to capture the holistic power of your complex supply
chain to increase profitability and deliver service levels that help your organization prosper. Only
SCOPE provides a full range approach-from planning through execution-to optimize every link
of your supply chain for an improved total outcome for your business.  

With unrivaled predictive technologies, a common process platform and key visibility,
intelligence and adaptive functionality, SCOPE leverages the spectrum of people, tasks and
events across your supply chain for the most efficient, accurate performance possible. SCOPE's
modular service-oriented architecture facilitates the creation of cross-suite applications to
address specific requirements core to your goals.

In an increasingly complex world of demand, you can't afford to simply manage your supply
chain anymore-you have to optimize it. SCOPE: Supply Chain Optimization-Planning through
Execution-is focused on getting you there.
Pic.: SCOPE Platform

The company offers Manhattan SCOPE and Manhattan SCALE, which are platform-based
supply chain software solutions. Its Manhattan SCOPE is a portfolio of supply chain solution
suites that include planning and forecasting, inventory optimization, order lifecycle management,
transportation lifecycle management, and distribution management. The Manhattan SCOPE also
includes X-Suite solutions comprising flow management and extended enterprise management.
The company’s Manhattan SCALE is a portfolio of logistics execution solutions. It also provides
professional services, including planning and implementation services; and customer support
services, as well as training services. In addition, Manhattan Associates, Inc. sells computer
hardware, radio frequency terminal networks, RFID chip readers, bar code printers and scanners,
and other peripherals. The company offers its solutions in premise software and hosted Software-
as-a-Service models. It serves suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and logistics
providers.

Industries it caters to

Manhattan draws on its extensive experience with customers in your industry to develop
SCOPE: Supply Chain Optimization—Planning through Execution solutions to help you meet
the challenges you face every day:

 Consumer Goods: Improve customer satisfaction, increase profits, implement complete

traceability and reduce inventory levels and costs, all while expanding outlets and
increasing profits.
  Food: Respond quickly to changing demands, comply with burgeoning regulations and
improve service levels. At the same time, enhance profits by reducing transportation costs
and speeding deliveries.
 Government: Procure, secure and track goods; reduce transit time; and manage returns
and redeployments.
 High Tech/Electronics: Share data and coordinate processes within divisions and among
your trading network. See what's happening at every point in your supply chain to
achieve competitive advantage despite industry consolidation and increased competition.
 Industrial/Wholesale: Gain control of an increasingly complicated, worldwide supply
chain with enhanced visibility of every step from order to delivery. Get your products to
market faster, and at lower cost, by effectively managing transportation and warehouse
costs and processes.
 Life Sciences: Ensure compliance, increase security and improve tracking—all while
minimizing logistics costs to make you more competitive.
 Logistics Service Providers: Manage inventory and expectations, clients and channels at
levels of efficiency you only dreamed of before.
 Retail: Reduce inventory and increase turns while minimizing time to customer and
stock-outs—all while reducing warehouse and transportation costs.
 Transportation Providers: Avoid Hard Times Despite Soft Market and Rising Fuel Costs

Competitors

Direct Competitor Financial Comparison  

MANH JDAS ORCL PVT1 Industry
Market Cap: 649.25M 1.33B 164.66B N/A 274.72M
Employees: 1,900 3,000 105,000 N/A 511.00
Qtrly Rev Growth (yoy): 13.40% 65.30% 46.50% N/A 25.00%
Revenue (ttm): 246.67M 555.57M 31.99B 261.00M 1
134.18M
EBITDA (ttm): 20.39M 136.87M 12.63B N/A 20.47M
Operating Margin (ttm): 8.57% 15.24% 34.00% N/A 8.47%
Net Income (ttm): 16.56M 20.37M 6.78B N/A N/A
 
JDAS = JDA Software Group Inc.
ORCL = Oracle Corp.
Pvt1 = Red Prairie Corporation (privately held)
Industry = Application Software
1
= As of 2009  

Software Companies Ranked By Sales  

 Company Symbol Price Change Market Cap P/E
Microsoft Corporation MSFT 28.83 1.32% 246.61B 12.42
IBM Software "Private"
Oracle Corp. ORCL 32.59 0.93% 164.66B 24.50
SAP AG SAP 56.13 1.76% 66.66B 23.78
CA Technologies CA 23.47 -7.45% 12.01B 15.29
 

Best of the Breed Players:

There are only three major best-of-breed players above $100 Million in revenue within the
Supply Chain Planning/Execution space – JDA, Manhattan Associates and RedPrairie.
 JDA -Acquired i2 Technologies – January, 2010- the combined entity is almost twice the
size of Manhattan.
 Red Prairie- Privately held company- acquired in March 2010 by New Mountain Capital
(NMC)

Manhattan’s Strength and weakness Analysis

Manhattan Associates software strengths include its best in class WMS and TMS and this supply
chain management system should be considered for any SCM initiative seriously looking at
WMS and TMS. Manhattan Associates system weakness includes the absence of CRM software
and an SRM system. Without an integrated suite of enterprise-wide applications, Manhattan is
at a disadvantage when competing against other vendors such as Oracle and SAP.
Manhattan’s line up of SCM planning products is narrow and lacks robust features. S&OP and
demand management lack the multi-level and the longer horizon planning structure of other
enterprise software vendors, and they do not address demand shaping. Supply management
supports replenishment features, but lacks support for other areas of supply management.
Manhattan’s Software architecture and cross application support lacks the robust features and
functionality of several other software technology vendors.
Warehouse management systems make up 60% of the company’s revenue, with 40% derived
from the other applications and modules.

MA Revenue and Income Statement - 10 Year Summary (in Millions)

 
 
% Total Tax
% Sales Profit Net Profit Rate
  Sales Growth EBIT Growth Depreciation Income Margin EPS (%)
Dec-09 246.67 -26.85% 20.39 - 11.4 16.56 6.71% 0.73 18.76
 35.29%
-
Dec-08 337.2 -0.06% 31.51 33.90% 12.7 22.8 6.76% 0.94 27.64
Dec-07 337.4 16.80% 47.67 38.62% 13.7 30.75 9.11% 1.13 35.49
Dec-06 288.87 17.24% 34.39 4.37% 13.3 19.33 6.69% 0.69 43.79
Dec-05 246.4 14.65% 32.95 -5.51% 12.1 18.64 7.56% 0.64 43.45
10.06
Dec-04 214.92 9.20% 34.87 4.90% 10.78 21.63 % 0.7 37.95
- 10.46
Dec-03 196.81 12.00% 33.24 13.41% 11.01 20.58 % 0.67 38.08
13.44
Dec-02 175.72 12.37% 38.39 49.32% 8.57 23.61 % 0.78 38.51
10.35
Dec-01 156.38 12.81% 25.71 -1.15% 10.96 16.19 % 0.53 37.04
11.74
Dec-00 138.62   26.01   5.48 16.27 % 0.53 37.45

Although the company has had a software-as-a-service (SaaS) offering with its TLM product for
several years, management reports little interest in SaaS products.

AMR Research, however, has seen a significant rise in the interest for software as a service.

JDA Strength and weaknesses

JDA’s tradition and strengths are in retail systems, and their merchandise and store planning
systems are leading products for the retail industry. Manugistics is considered a leader and
innovator in SCM for manufacturing and distribution companies. Their combined enterprise
software products, best practices and industry knowledge put JDA in a leadership position in
S&OP, Demand Management and Supply Management. The TMS product acquired through the
Manugistics acquisition is a full featured and top caliber transportation management system.
JDA’s weakness is the absence of WMS, CRM and SRM products. Without a complete
integrated suite of SCM products, JDA is at a disadvantage when competing against vendors for
who have integrated WMS, CRM and SRM.
The JDA software architecture and cross application support lacks the features and
functionality of the other enterprise software solutions, including advanced functionality for
system integration, web services and data management. With their diverse technologies
(including IBM midrange, Microsoft .NET and Java), JDA architectural challenges are further
complicated
Red Prairie Strength and Weakness analysis
Red Prairie’s supply chain software strengths are in WMS and TMS, along with a software
architecture that supports critical functions for integrating third party systems and custom
applications. The WMS and TMS applications are considered best in class distribution products
and should be considered for any SCM software initiatives related to WMS and TMS.
Other than some very basic inventory management features, Red Prairie only supports supply
chain execution functions. The inventory planning is for short-term horizons and lacks the
structure of more full featured supply management solutions.
If a fully integrated SCM solution is high on the requirements, Red Prairie will be at a
disadvantage, because of the cost and time to integrate and support a broader enterprise
software solution.
Currently, RedPrairie has a major opportunity in front of it. Earlier this year RedPrairie was
acquired by New Mountain Capital which is a private equity firm. According to Mike Mayoras,
CEO of RedPrairie, this acquisition is a positive situation. According to him, RedPrairie is now
positioned for making strategic acquisitions in areas such as SaaS where there is white space in
their domain coverage.
Here is the current go–to-market approach of RedPrairie along different areas such as process
scope, industry coverage etc.
 SCM process scope – Primarily Execution with limited planning. Strength in workforce
management at DC and store. Beginning time phased replenishment with Flowcasting
 Industry Coverage – Retail, food/beverage and consumer manufacturing. Presence in
third party logistics,  industrial manufacturing and Wholesale
 Platform strategy –  Works with Microsoft, LINUX and UNIX from a hardware platform
perspective. On the retail side, RedPrairie has adopted the Microsoft software platform
 SaaS Strategy – Hosted solution & SmartTurn’s multi-tenant WMS solution,
Collaboration portal
RedPrairie has added SmartTurn’s multi-tenant SaaS WMS product to its E2e suite and
renamed it RedPrairie On-Demand WMS. Over time, the product will be integrated with (or
interfaced to) appropriate complementary RedPrairie’s offerings. Under SmartTurn’s pay-as-
you-go (PAYG) model, customers pay a fixed monthly cost of US$1,200 per site/facility with
unlimited users. There is also a one-time US$4,000 setup fee. Such appetizing functionality and
price should help RedPrairie finally attract the lower end of the market.

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Warehouse

Pic: Gartner Magic Quadrant for WMS

Gartner’s view about Manhatttan

Manhattan offers three distinct WMS offerings targeted at different markets: WM for IBMi,
which caters to customers that prefer the reliability and ease of operation of the IBMi platform;
SCALE (previously Manhattan's WM for Windows), which is based on a Microsoft technical
platform and caters to the SMB and WMS markets in emerging geographies; and Warehouse
Management for Open Systems (WMOS), which caters to sophisticated warehouse
environments. WMOS is the vendor's flagship WMS offering and is built on the vendor's SCOPE
technical platform, which includes Manhattan's other supply chain solutions, such as
transportation, distributed order management, replenishment and planning. Although the
company has global operations, the majority of its business continues to come from North
America and Western Europe. SCALE, however, is gaining traction in emerging markets. Even
though the vendor's financial performance in 2009 was down largely because of the weak
global economy, it remains stable, profitable, with cash reserves, and has continued its
historically conservative financial operations. Manhattan is inclined to drive innovation in-
house, unlike many other WMS vendors that innovate and grow through acquisition. Although
the vendor has made some acquisitions, they tend to be early-stage offerings that are more
easily integrated into its solution portfolio.

Strengths

 With its 2010 version release, WMOS was moved onto Manhattan's SCOPE technical
platform in 4Q09. It is now seamlessly integrated with all the other newer SCM solutions
the vendor offers, like transportation, supply chain planning, returns management, flow,
and distributed order management.
 WMOS is in the Leaders quadrant because it offers industry-leading depth and breadth
of both core and extended WMS capabilities. Manhattan has also demonstrated a
continued ability to bring innovation to its core WMS solutions, which augments WMS
and extends SCE processes, such as adding returns management, distributed order
management, mobile warehouse management and landed cost management.
 By moving the product onto SCOPE, WMOS version 2010 is now better suited to support
a zero-modification implementation in complex operations. It's approaching what
Gartner refers to as a model-driven application. It also offers tools for functional
customization, using process modeling, workflow and scripting tools, as well as Web
services to integrate with external solutions.
 Manhattan's WMOS is broadly used in a variety of WMS environments, from
moderately complex to extremely complex, sophisticated and high-volume warehouse
operations.
 The vendor is stable and has conservative financial operations.
 Although Manhattan has made some acquisitions (notably transportation and supply
chain planning), it is more focused on organic, self-directed innovation. The vendor
continues to bring to market self-developed and complementary components like
returns, flow, cost to serve, distributed order management and a new mobile WMS
capability called FieldScout.
 The company has a compelling vision for a next-generation SCE platform that exploits
emerging technologies and decision-making enhancement through the use of
 embedded analytics and BAM. Manhattan has strategies and capabilities that push the
boundaries of traditionally execution-centric WMS by enhancing SCE decision-making
capabilities through the use of science and math.
 Now that WMOS is on the SCOPE platform, the company can deliver on its SCE
convergence vision, which remains the most extensive of all the SCM suite vendors.
 Manhattan has established strategic relationships with select customers that committed
to its SCOPE platform. This is something not typical of best-of-breed software vendors
that lack the C-level-executive clout of large-scale suite vendors.

Cautions

 Although WMOS has now been moved onto the SCOPE platform and aligns with
Gartner's definition of a model-driven architecture, this is only a recent occurrence
(released 4Q10), with customers just beginning the process of converting. In the short
term, questions about maturity, performance and reliability apply, although these will
be addressed during the next few months as existing and new customers go live on the
new platform.
 Exploiting model-driven applications will require new vendor and user skills during
implementation to ensure that tailoring and personalization flow smoothly. Given the
newness of this architecture, prospective clients must scrutinize and validate
implementation plans and activities. They should also talk to early adopters.
 Even though WMOS is now part of a broader suite, users should be careful not to tackle
too many solution implementations simultaneously, which could lead to excessively
long projects or possible challenges because of overreaching objectives. Users
considering multiple solutions should plan a phased platform strategy that includes
implementations of these solutions over time.
 Warehouse management remains Manhattan's predominant business. Compared to the
number of WMS users, adoption of the other SCOPE-based applications remains low,
although user demand and implementation is growing. Furthermore, outside North
America, there is inconsistent support for non-WMS, SCOPE-based applications, such as
supply chain planning or transportation.
Gartner’s view about RedPrairie
The company's roots in WMS go back two decades, and it has survived several technology life
cycle changes, from minicomputer, to client server and now to open systems. It recently
underwent a change in ownership when its previous financial partner, Francisco Partners, sold
the company to private equity firm New Mountain Capital. RedPrairie has multiple WMS
offerings, several of which are legacy products. There are two that somewhat overlap and are
actively marketed today: WM/R (formerly Dispatcher) and WM/D (formerly Discrete WMS).
The vendor offers a broad portfolio of applications, including WMS and multiple extended WMS
components as well as transportation management and retail management. Over the last
several years, RedPrairie has primarily bought innovation through numerous acquisitions,
enhancing its position in areas like transportation with fleet management, as well as retail
workforce management and store operations. Most recently, the vendor acquired an early
pioneer in cloud-based WMS, SmartTurn, but this offering has not been included or considered
in this research.

Strengths

 WM/D offers functional strength and competitiveness in most major deals for complex
warehouses.
 WM/D is in the Leaders quadrant because it offers industry-leading depth and breadth
of both core and extended WMS capabilities.
 RedPrairie has a long track record of delivering WMS solutions for some of the most
complex warehouse operations, combining strong WMS products and services to
support the needs of demanding clients.
 The vendor has an intriguing SCE convergence vision for retail-oriented and consumer-
packaged-goods-oriented, end-to-end supply chain strategies focused on linking supply
chain operations to in-store activities and demand signals. However, this remains
unconventional and unproven at this point.
 RedPrairie offers strong delivery of related products, such as labor management,
transportation and performance management.
 Notable support is provided for work order management supporting lightweight
manufacturing execution activities.
 The vendor is making progress in consolidating its legacy DLX/P customer base on the
WM/D product, which will yield deeper functionality as these more complex DLX/P
customers migrate to and test the WM/D platform.
  Component-based architecture gives the product flexibility, but it is not an SOA stack,
model-driven application or a business process management (BPM) tool.
 The vendor's new platform strategy is based on Microsoft technologies.
 RedPrairie has strong application hosting infrastructure and experience, which allows
users the flexibility to choose the application deployment strategy that best fits their
needs, such as on premises, single-instance hosted or multitenant hosted. This also
allows user flexibility to change deployment strategies in the future if business
conditions change, such as bringing a previously hosted application in-house.

Cautions

 This WMS is not a model-driven application that supports user customization. Although
the WM/D technical architecture is acceptable and mature today, given the number of
acquisitions and the breadth of its product portfolio, users must monitor the vendor's
ability to modernize its applications. Historically, the vendor has had a strong track
record in adopting new technologies and modernizing its applications.
 Although the vendor sells into multiple industries, its primary focus and solution
strategies are in consumer goods and retail.
 RedPrairie has grown through acquisition and now has a portfolio of products, including
multiple WMSs, some of which are relegated to a legacy support status and others that
are redundant to WM/D. The vendor's stated intention is to continue and — now
because of the change in ownership — accelerate acquisitions, which could result in
future solution rationalization challenges.
 The vendor has been very aggressive in selling new deals, often bundling multiple
components to sweeten a deal. If users will use these components in a reasonable time
frame, this is acceptable. However, users must be cautious not to overbuy, making what
appears a good deal not as favorable because of excessive shelfware.

By now it is but obvious that Manhattan and Redprairie are the equal rivals and they can eat
into each other’s market space. JDA though bigger in size does not have a go to market strategy
and should not affect either Manhattan or Redprarie market share.
Summary of capability comparison

Manhattan Red Prairie

Strong WMS and TMS and on the same
SCOPE platform
WMS gives 60% of revenue but no WMS
on SaaS
Works with ERPs but the products are
made to leverage the power of the
platform.
Did not acquire any WMS player recently
Strong WMS and TMS but not on the
same platform
WMS on SaaS
Established integration touch points with
most of the ERPs, no platform concept.
Acquired WMS players and got
customers added to its portfolio.

Financial Position in 2006

Manhattan Associates
$289M ; 25% Red Prairie
SAP
Oracle
Infor

Aldata
HighJump
$189M ; 16% Swisslog
$102M ; 8% Knapp Logistik
Dematic
$110M ; 9% $130M ; 11%

Michael Mayoras, RedPrairie’s CEO said that the privately held company had a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 20 percent in last 5 years (RedPrairie being a private
company- the financial data is not so freely available)
Financial Position in 2009

246.67; 22%

Manhattan
Red Prairie
600; 54% Others

261; 24%

It is obvious that Manhattan has lost the market share during this period while
Redprairie has grown bigger.

What had worked well for Manhattan in the past

Manhattan had simple but effective business strategies to suit its entrepreneurial
existence- some of them are-

Dominate Your Market By Building For Speed

Build an easy to integrate, easy to implement, and easy to use software product that
costs significantly less than your competitors. With this strategy competitors complete
just 10 or 12 installations a year, Manhattan Associates installed 67 systems in 1995
alone.

Architect Your Software Product For Low-Cost Development And Implementation

In designing their software product, PkMS, Manhattan Associates made several key
architectural decisions that aligned with their business strategy.

-- No custom code - This was the company's mantra. Build a software product that
provided 80% of the required function out-ofthe- box. The rest would be handled not by
custom code but by parameter settings in tables.
-- Make It Simple - When providing 80% of the functionality, do it with only 20% of the
complexity. Competitors built very sophisticated products with all the proverbial bells-
and-whistles.

-Take Advantage Of A Customer's Existing Systems – While other vendors were

duplicating data that existed in customer's backend systems, Manhattan Associates
interfaced directly with these.

Keep Customers For Life

While deciding on a set of market entry and R&D strategies, necessity again, led them
to another set of fundamental decisions, all dealing with creating an intensely customer-
focused culture. Without venture-backed funding, Manhattan Associates needed cash to
keep the business going. The best way to get cash is to have satisfied customers who
always stay as customers.

-- To Ensure Customer Satisfaction, Be A Solutions Company -Manhattan Associates

faced a business model choice: be a product software company and let others use the
software to provide customer solutions, or be a solutions company that provides the
software and services to solve a business problem. Given the nature of the problem
Manhattan was solving-warehousing systems and compliance with retailers' packaging
requirements-Dabbiere and his partners believed that they needed a direct relationship
with the customer. Therefore, they opted to be a solutions company.

-- Create "Ecstatic" Customers - Raghavan said their goal was not to create "happy"
customers but to create "Ecstatic" customers.

Hire Smart Committed Employees With A Strong Work-Ethic

Lastly, like Microsoft, which acted as their model, the founders took hiring very, very
seriously, instituting an extensive hiring process. And this didn't change as the company
grew. When Richard Haddrill, the next CEO, was interviewing for the job, he went
through a set of exhaustive interviews with the board and with the executive leadership-
and, surprising for someone at his level, he took an aptitude test as well as a
psychological test.

Solve Your Customer's "Customer Problem"

While Manhattan's Associates competitors in the Warehouse Management System
focused solely on wringing cost out of warehouse operations, Manhattan Associates
took a broader approach, linking a manufacturer's warehouse operation with the needs
of the retailer who received the goods.
What Went Wrong then
Let’s analyze some of the possible causes that may not have worked for Manhattan in
recent times-

Misalignment of Business with respect to the Strategic Plan

Founders often don't stress strategic planning. They instinctively know their business
and have executives who have all known each other for quite a while. So their
management style is more informal. But as a company grows, it becomes increasingly
harder to keep it aligned, having all parts of the organization working in sync on a
common set of goals. With all the founders and initial set of executives gone and with
some many M&A later the original values and guiding strategic principles are all lost.

With 2002 acquisition of Logistics.com came the LEMA platform (which was renamed
SCOPE in 2010) which was a robust application development platform-but it was
complex at the same time. Developing new applications using this platform was time
consuming and error prone too- with not much investment done in automation of QA
processes- it became costly to develop and maintain code.
In 2007-2008 company spent close to $50M in migrating the WMS application to this
platform. This high cost development violated their first two strategies- this must have
put pressure on margins as well, which is shown in low profit margin of around 7%.

Steep learning Curve and inexperienced work force

In order to reduce cost and meeting the growing customer demand- management felt
the need of hiring fresh college graduates in bulk from different universities across India.

Most of them had no or little programming skills- they were given a week’s training in
the basic programming skills but this was hardly adequate. Making them learn SCOPE
platform was another herculean task- supply chain domain itself is complex. On top of it
they did not had the right monitoring and managing structure in place- to learn and be
productive took almost an year for most of them. This strategy backfired – product
quality suffered and cost of development further went up. This was again a violation of
their original strategies.

Operational In-efficiencies

By end of 2004 most of the development work started getting out of India office-
including the major customer support activities- and below was the organization
structure-
 EVP(US)

Pic.: Organizational structure before the restructuring

This org structure became a bottleneck in due course of time- for department heads
sitting in US, to get any work done from their counterparts in India they had to go via the
MD of India, which caused lots of customer issues.

Realizing the problem, the org structure was changed subsequently in early 2008 to a
more network structure.

Not adequate attention was paid to quality during the product development- did not
have any unit test cases- since the most of the framework code was legacy and no unit
test was written ever- developing unit test cases for the whole system was not an easy
task- hence it took backseat forever. QA test scripts were also not 100% automated. All
of these resulted in poor code quality, which made customer unhappy.

With newer technologies replacing older technologies- the older staff of Manhattan
became obsolete- causing drain on the bottom-line.

Departure of one of the key executive member and other key resources

On December 31, 2008, Pervinder Johar resigned from his position as Senior Vice
President and Chief Technology Officer of Manhattan Associates, Inc. (the “Company”)
effective as of January 15, 2009. It is anticipated that Mr. Johar provide transition
services to the Company until February 28, 2009. Pervider was playing a key role in
giving a strategic direction to company, with his departure the company became
direction less at least for some time. In all TMS deals he played a key role.

In a year or so – many key resources left the company on their own seeing no direction
from higher management.

No new initiatives or innovation on product front-

Redprairie came with SaaS solution to capture the low cost segment but MA did not
have such plans. It also did not try to make any serious attempt to get a different stream
of revenue other than WMS- it had so many other products but they could sell only
WMS. Over dependence on WMS did them in.

What lies ahead

With its most recent 2010 release, Manhattan announced that its WM for Open Systems
(WMOS) is now available on its supply chain process platform (SCPP) and that all
applications are now available with a single common data model, common transactional
objects, and common functional components. The introduction of the support for a
componentized architecture and a unified platform is good for Manhattan’s existing and
prospective customers, but many other vendors in the market have had these
capabilities for several years, like i2 Technologies with its Agile Business Process
Platform (ABPP). Of course, the big ERP vendors have their own versions of this unified
platform approach, too: Oracle’s Fusion Middleware and SAP’s NetWeaver. Manhattan
is on the right track with its SCPP platform approach and may have jumped the market
by using such standard technologies as AJAX interface technology and the Eclipse
workflow modeling tools.

Although Manhattan has long had the capabilities to solve the backend requirements of
store replenishment and direct-to-consumer fulfillment, there’s been a lack of sales and
service applications required for true anywhere retailing. Now, integrating with IBM’s
WebSphere Commerce product, Manhattan’s DOM is capable of capturing an order
from any channel and fulfilling it from any location in the supply chain. In fact, DOM
received the Best ISV Partner Innovation award from IBM at its WebSphere Commerce
Leadership Summit.

Conclusion
Manhattan will need to continue to see an increase in the $1M-plus deals, differentiate
itself from the big ERP vendors, and expand internationally in order to maintain its
leadership position in the market. It seriously needs to think of getting into low cost
WMS market and still provide the power of the SCOPE platform- which can happen only
through WMS through SaaS.

Resources are the key to any organization’s success- this must be realized and key
resources need to motivated and well taken care of.

Product Quality needs to be improved- more attention need to be paid on unit tests,
continuous integration and automation of tests.
A culture of supporting innovation needs to be cultivated to survive in this high tech
industry.

With these things in place Manhattan can not only retrace it growth path but can grow
even more vigorously.

References
1. Company’s Introduction: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Manhattan-
Associates-Inc-Company-History.html
2. Solutions Offered By Manhattan: http://www.manh.com/solutions/solutions-overview
3. Competitors Data: http://in.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MANH
4. Manhattan S/W analysis :http://www.erp.asia/manhattan.asp
5. JDA S/W analysis :http://www.erp.asia/jda.asp
6. Redprairie S/W analysis and financial data :http://www.erp.asia/redprairie.asp,
http://blogs.aberdeen.com/2010/05/27/redprairie-in-growth-mode-updates-from-redshift-2010
7. Gartner Magic quadrant: http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-
products/reprints/oracle/article147/article147.html
8. www.manh.com/library/case_studies.html.
9. http://www.implu.com/releases/2009/20090107/19353/implu_viewer
10. http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-price?symbol=MANH
11. www.softwarebusinessonline.com:”Manhattan Associates: Skyscraper built”
12. http://blog.technologyevaluation.com/blog/2010/06/07/redprairie-makes-a-smart-turn-into-
saas-wms/

Appendix
Table 1: Revenue and Income statement
    2009 2008 2007 2006
Revenue:      
$34,68 $65,31
Software license 6 3 73,031 66,543
189,85 235,96
Services 0 7 226,153 194,521
Hardware and other 22,131 35,921 38,217 27,804
246,66 337,20
Total revenue 7 1 337,401 288,868
Costs and Expenses:      
Cost of license 4,726 5,961 5,334 5,796
 116,70
Cost of services 84,349 7 109,758 93,427
Cost of hardware and other 18,386 29,270 32,268 24,515
Research and development 36,681 48,407 46,594 41,468
Sales and marketing 36,137 51,177 53,406 45,888
General and administrative 29,946 37,145 33,366 29,143
Depreciation and amortization 11,418 12,699 13,617 13,247
Asset impairment charges -- 5,205 270
Restructuring charge 3,882 4,667 2,303
225,52 311,23
Total costs and expenses 5 8 294,343 258,113
   
Operating income   21,142 25,963 43,058 30,755
  3,390 3,443
Other (expense) income, net   -756 5,545 1,218 195
Income before income taxes   20,386 31,508 47,666 34,393
Income tax provision   3,824 8,710 16,915 15,062
$16,56 $22,79
Net income   2 8 30,751 19,331

Table 2: Balance Sheet for last 10 years

 Balance Sheet - 10 Year Summary (in Millions)
 

Current Assets   Current Liabilities   Long Term Debt Shares Outstanding

Dec-
09 264.71   81.35   0 22.5 Mil
Dec-
08 270.22   90.38   0 23.6 Mil
Dec-
07 271.66   85.96   0 24.9 Mil
Dec-
06 314.89   77.75   0 27.6 Mil
Dec-
05 273.4   68   0 27.2 Mil
Dec-
04 290.24   51.22   0.15 29.6 Mil
Dec-
03 266.61   42.45   0.29 30.1 Mil
Dec-
02 220.2   34.91   0.24 29.0 Mil
Dec-
01 180.72   39.52   2.18 27.7 Mil
Dec-
00 152.38   42.37   5.87 26.4 Mil

Table 3: Income statement 10 years

Income Statement - 10 Year Summary (in Millions)
 
Total Tax
% Sales Net Profit Rate
  Sales Growth EBIT Depreciation Income Margin EPS (%)
Dec-09 246.67 -26.85% 20.39 11.4 16.56 6.71% 0.73 18.76
Dec-08 337.2 -0.06% 31.51 12.7 22.8 6.76% 0.94 27.64
Dec-07 337.4 16.80% 47.67 13.7 30.75 9.11% 1.13 35.49
Dec-06 288.87 17.24% 34.39 13.3 19.33 6.69% 0.69 43.79
Dec-05 246.4 14.65% 32.95 12.1 18.64 7.56% 0.64 43.45
Dec-04 214.92 9.20% 34.87 10.78 21.63 10.06% 0.7 37.95
Dec-03 196.81 12.00% 33.24 11.01 20.58 10.46% 0.67 38.08
Dec-02 175.72 12.37% 38.39 8.57 23.61 13.44% 0.78 38.51
Dec-01 156.38 12.81% 25.71 10.96 16.19 10.35% 0.53 37.04
Dec-00 138.62   26.01 5.48 16.27 11.74% 0.53 37.45
Table 4: Cash flow Statements for last 5 years
  2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
12/31/200 12/31/200 12/31/200 12/31/200 12/31/200
Period End Date 9 8 7 6 5
Period Length 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months
Stmt Source 10-K 10-K 10-K 10-K 10-K
Stmt Source Date 2/19/2010 2/24/2009 2/25/2008 3/14/2007 2/25/2008
Reclassifie
Stmt Update Type Updated Updated Updated Updated d

Net Income/Starting Line 16.56 22.8 30.75 19.33 18.64

Depreciation/Depletion 11.42 12.7 13.62 13.25 12.07
Amortization 0 0 0 0 0
Deferred Taxes 2.08 -1.39 -2.76 -0.57 1.37
Non-Cash Items          
  8.69 13.63 5.91 8.76 3.53
Unusual Items 0.13 5.36 0.01 0.29 0.08
Other Non-Cash Items 8.56 8.27 5.89 8.47 3.45
Changes in Working Capital          
  19.58 16.1 -9.24 3.35 -2.22
Accounts Receivable 26.66 7.08 -10.62 -1.62 -8.69
Prepaid Expenses 0 0 0 1.6 -1.6
Other Assets 3.06 2.69 3.45 -3.48 -4.38
Accounts Payable 0 0 0 3.81 0.38
Accrued Expenses 0 0 0 0 7.28
Payable/Accrued -10.45 6 -5.34 0 0
Taxes Payable -3.5 -1.32 1.53 0.37 1.36
Other Liabilities 3.82 1.66 1.74 2.67 3.44
Cash from Operating Activities 58.32 63.84 38.27 44.12 33.39

Capital Expenditures          
  -2.38 -7.71 -9.4 -9.64 -8.49
Purchase of Fixed Assets -2.38 -7.71 -9.4 -9.64 -8.49
Other Investing Cash Flow Items,
Total          
  0.08 21.62 84.52 -38.26 12.34
Acquisition of Business 0 0 0 -0.13 -48.79
Sale/Maturity of Investment 0 345.58 772.69 793.8 931.25
Investment, Net 0.08 0 0 0 0
Purchase of Investments 0 -323.96 -688.17 -831.93 -870.12
Cash from Investing Activities -2.29 13.92 75.12 -47.9 3.85

Financing Cash Flow Items          

   0.06 0.1 0.72 2.52 0
Other Financing Cash Flow 0.06 0.1 0.72 2.52 0
Total Cash Dividends Paid 0 0 0 0 0
Issuance (Retirement) of Stock, Net -21.77 -31.93 -89.02 0.13 -54.34
Issuance (Retirement) of Debt, Net 0 0 0 -0.15 -0.1
Cash from Financing Activities -21.71 -31.83 -88.3 2.5 -54.44

Foreign Exchange Effects 0.16 -4.86 1.14 0.31 -0.8

Net Change in Cash 34.48 41.06 26.23 -0.97 -18.01

Manhattan Associates Company Principles

1. We provide value to our customers by listening carefully

and providing innovative products and services delivered in
an effective and efficient manner, and we receive fair consideration
for that value.
2. We make commitments carefully and honor our commitments.
We "do what we say will do."
3. We are clear and direct in our communication. "Bad
news does not get better with age."
4. We are action-oriented.
5. We provide growth opportunities for our people through
open communication, challenging work, fair compensation
and proper training.
6. We treat people fairly and with respect
7. We conserve our customer's and the company'
resources with at least the same vigilance that we would use
to guard own personal resources.
8. We strive to increase shareholder value over the long
term and will not sacrifice our future for short-term gain
9. We bring honesty and integrity to everything we do
10. Work is an important part of life, and it should be fun.
Manhattan Associates Technology partners-