An IDEA with Vision?

Let’s see if we understand this: NAED’s BOD killed the JV with Trade Service and in the same motion asked to fire Mike Rioux through NEMA. Now NAED will want to run IDEA.
Does anyone understand the damage that has been done to IDEA?
IDEA is a techie firm that needs to insulated away from the shabby politics of NAED.

With all the press releases being passed around along with emails and phone calls,the “change” at IDEA doesn’t pass the SMELL TEST.In fact it smells like a magazine publlisher and his ego are running NAED into the ditch.
In the case of a TSC JV it would be better to make them part of the solution. Now I fear they will take on IDEA.

We’ve received 11 distributor and 9 manufacturer calls this past week concerning this posting.
They expressed confusion about what is taking place at IDEA and who actually is seeking the change.
Additionally, many of these callers had heard of a proposed IDEA/TSC joint venture and that apparently NAED vetoed a deal after 2 years of negotiation. Some of these callers questioned NAED’s motive.
From what callers said some manufacturers indicate that they should just buy the remaining portion of IDEA or create their own JV with TSC.
The question is where does IDEA go from here? What do you think?

I think that the wrong person got asked to leave.
It’s about time to replace NAED’s president. His behavior is not acceptable. This is not the first time we have had to cover his tail because of his desire for power..
As a distributor, I think we should have someone who can act and be a professional that leads NAED. That is what I think!

This is just not right !! Is there a movement to reverse this ?

NAED has never been really good at defining a vision, and as one would expect, they have managed to screw up some really good joint work between manufacturers and distributors. It sounds like that two association Presidents made the decision regarding replacement of the IDEA president. One would suspect that Presidents of associations DO NOT HAVE a vote on any board they sit on. This smells like NAED’s president couldn’t or wouldn’t leave IDEA alone.
NAED should clean their house of the current management and get a real professional in to lead. The unprofessional treatment and then cover up by the NAED President has gone on for too long.
I suggest that manufacturers and distributors start asking some questions and don’t take the BS answers that corporate NAED reels off.
From our end, we have started asking other distributors what is going on.

I am concerned about the direction things are moving. As a paying customer, I receive a great value from IDEA. Will that value still be there if NAED takes over? Also, did the full IDEA board vote on this?

We pay and have received value from IDEA.
Nice meeting locations for NAED
What I keep hearing is that the NAED and NEMA presidents made the decision to fire Mike, without really informing the full boards.
In addition, I am told that Mike R.was prevented from making a presentation to the full NAED board or even the Executive Board about the TSC JV. If that proves to be true, then the NAED board probably was not exposed to the real facts and benefits of the proposal. This is strang after two years of neog.with TSC.
All value will disappear for both the distributor and manufacturer if NAED should end up running IDEA.
As someone said earlier…it smells of dirty NAED politics.

An Open letter IDEA
Several of my distributor friends have called over the last few days about the NAED BS they have heard that has been falsely generated against you and IDEA.

You have done a great job pulling IDEA out of the ashes and getting into the present day electronic world. We are sitting here at a point where we can do business around the world along with the big guys. It seems that just about the time we are getting net prices into stock, some of the “good old boy’ distributors must have gotten threatened.

We as a company are very worried that IDEA will be run in the ditch and all the time and money will have been pissed off.

It appears that the two presidents …NAED and NEMA made a decision and then hood winked Todd Kumm into carrying the message out to the distributors. NAED’s bad mouth tactics of you and your performance is sadly they way that some of our distributor brethren do business…just so they can get their ego falsely stroked.

I apologize for the way you have been treated.

B. Henry

Who ever made the decision to scuttle the IDEA/TSC-JV should have made ALL of the NAED board aware of the ‘deal’ and not left it up to a person hired to run NAED. Why wasn’t IDEA allowed to present the package to the board?
Many of the NAED board members that I have talked too are clueless about a possible IDEA/TSC JV.
Would someone on the NAED or IDEA board go ask for the documents?
It also appears that many of you who have called are correct…we need new blood running NAED.

I want to correct a misstatement made on this site–“but the original concept for IDEA was developed by a manufacturer (John Haluska from T & B, supported by Clyde Moore).”
While John Haluska was the chairman of the IDW Technical Committee neither he nor Clyde Moore conceived the original concept for the IDW. John conceived what at the time was called “The Extranet,” a major contribution to the eventual financial success of IDEA. On the other hand he was also the conceiver of “Remote Hosting” by manufacturers. I strongly objected to this concept but was overruled by the powers that be. Much time and effort was spent on this feature by the Technical Committee with the end result being it was a wasted effort as it has never been implemented by a single manufacturer.
When Clyde Moore was approached by me and Steve Bouza from NAED proposing the concept of the electrical manufacturer community supporting the concept of a standard product descriptor database, he told us that there was no manufacturer interest at all. He was the NEMA Chairman at the time. This negative response put into motion a whole series of events and projects that eventually culminated in AnswerPro which was the electrical industry CD Rom catalog. A standardized product descriptor database was part and parcel of AnswerPro and a sub committee chaired by Dave Ursetto developed the standard. About a year or so after the launch of AnswerPro, David Crum who was NAED Chairman at the time, requested that I form a task force to divorce the Product Descriptor Database from AnswerPro as it was not an efficient way to distribute the data. I formed the task force which included the following people; Arnold Farber, Dave Ursetto, Linda Healey, Tom Kozak, Ron Deslauriers, Andy Dobbs, Jim Ford and others. We met only once for approximately five hours at the American Airlines Business Center in Chicago O’hare. During that incredibly productive and creative session, we conceive of the concept of the IDW (which varied little from it’s eventual original incarnation), the marketing strategies to first sell it to distribution and then the manufacturer community, and inviolable principles that applied to the types of data to be utilized. Two of these principles that have been violated in recent years have, in my opinion, caused the current political problems in IDEA. We were adamant that only ANSI X12 transaction sets be used (i.e. NO FLAT FILES) and that NO distributor specific data be accommodated (i.e. NO individual distributor net into stock pricing be permitted.) It would take far too long here for me to explain why we arrived at those “cast in stone” principles, but they were not made lightly. In short, utilizing flat files acts as a enabler to take a path that is not in the long term interests for those who are too lazy to acquire the resources and knowledge to comply with ANSI X12. Developing flat files does a great disservice to those who demanded them when the time comes and important customers of theirs will require that they utilize STANDARD ANSI X12 transactions as a condition for doing business. Additionally, supporting flat files adds greatly to the resources required by IDEA to support the user base, resources that could be much better employed in their primary mission. As far as “Net Into Stock Costing” is concerned, we included a much more elegant solution to that requirement by utilizing two “Price Group Code” fields.
As far as the Rioux situation is concerned, I have spoken to many people in the last week from both the distributor and manufacturer community. On the manufacturer side the feeling is almost unanimous that Rioux has done a spectacular job and was treated shabbily. One manufacturer went so far as to say that Mike walks on water. On the distributor side, most people agreed with the sentiment I found among the vendors. However, there was one major distributor that thinks Mike did a terrible job and others who were in the decision making process who while generally complimentary, but agreed that it was time for a change. When I pressed them for specifics, the responses were unconvincing.
My personal feelings are that Mike was the victim of several misunderstandings concerning such initiatives as the Trade Service proposed merger which I think is major opportunity lost by NAED and the electrical industry. I know there is a lot of mistrust of Trade Service among both electrical distributors and manufacturers, and rightfully so. But, the old paranoid and ethically challenged crew at Trade Service is history. With a carefully written agreement and proper operational and business controls in the place, this was a golden opportunity that was regrettably squandered. Since Mike was one of the major negotiators and supporters of the deal, he has been painted with the bad will formerly aimed at Trade Service.
Many in the NAED community demanded that IDEA support net into stock costs. BAD IDEA, pun intended. Again, this was carefully considered by the IDW Task Force at the Chicago meeting and I believe by the IDW Technical Committee and soundly rejected for very sound reasons. The reasons are way too long to go into here, but I would be more than happy to discuss this with interested parties. Anyway, it became a nightmare for the IDEA staff to finally come up with a system which works and is in production now with 9 manufacturers. There was great dissatisfaction with IDEA’s performance developing this capability. Most of the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of IDEA. More importantly as I previously, it NEVER should have been done in the first place.
Bottom line, I think that Mike was sacrificed at the political alter and that IDEA will suffer tremendously when he leaves. If his replacement is not from the electrical industry, and falls prey to the political environment, influence and control of unqualified people, then I fear most of the IDEA staff will also leave. It appears to me that there are those within NAED that wanted all of the resources of IDEA concentrated on what they (mistakenly?) saw as all important and threw a hissy fit when their expectations weren’t met. When and if they get the new leadership for IDEA, they may find that they got just what they deserved.

Steve Tecot stecot@ix,netcom.com

This blog started out asking what would be the focus of IDEA with change that was first announced by NAED…our association.
As events have been revealed, it appears that we have thrown away a good opportunity to drive cost out of the channel only to appease our association president’s ego and maybe a couple of distributors who were falsely influenced.

B.Henry

I am afraid that we distributors have been fed the usual NAED corporate bull.
The JV deal we’ve heard described by several, make the association look pretty stupid for having neogiated in bad faith, only to walk away at the end.
I am only one company, but change is needed in our association.
We as distributors, need a temporary person to take over NAED, while an exhaustive search is made to find a new president.

As to the vision of IDEA, sure seems like there are a number of manufacturers and distributors who are engaged is coming up to speed with data and EDI transmissions. We think IDEA is on track to deliver what we think are real cost reductions in a secure enviroment. Why should we let some hired employee destroy this for all parties.
T.C.

NAED puts on good meetings with good locations if you play golf.
From a networking stand point these meetings are a good opportunity for all to meet.

There is virtually no business value provided by NAED per se to us distributors…sorry to say. They offer nothing that helps my company reduce or control cost. They seem to take on issues that really end up going no where.

IDEA is the first joint industry venture that is successful. I am told by several of my distributors friends that a possible JV with TSC would have yielded fairly large cost reductions to both manufacturers and distributors.
Times have changed from when the old TSC was around.
It would be helpful if the potential JV papers or potential agreement could be made public and let the NAED membership take a look.
I am concerned that NAED distributors might have looked the other way (or maybe they just had the wool pulled over their eyes) while a consultant and a NAED president determined the outcome of a very successful industry venture (IDEA).
Thank you
CR Johnson
P.S. Just wondering out loud: Is this whole loss of vision do to jealousy by the NAED president, that IDEA has been successful and real progress is being made? or is it a grab for power to justify someone’s job.

How is it that two heads of these associations are making the call to scuttle a potential JV with TSC. Who gave them permission to terminate this deal?
How can the same two people make the call about who runs IDEA (that is sure the way it appears).

I am on the NAED BOD and we did not have a meeting or vote about any of this. Puzzled as to why someone should serve on a board if these guys are out there running things.
Can someone share some details out in the open?

Naed BOD Member,
You need to openly discuss this issue with your board because NAED and NEMA each have one vote on the reorganized IDEA for non profit corperation. Your President apparently used this vote to have Mike R. removed. He also has the same one vote to replace Mike. Who does he report to?

This is not necessarily about Rioux….or about IDEA being off track.
It is about the problem that naed has with Naber before.
“The timing was not right” is the faint excuse I keep hearing about a JV with TSC.
Let’s hear all the details of the proposed JV.

If we need to get Rioux back then we need to do it.

Sometimes my people feel stupid around Rioux. But that is not the reason to run him off. Rioux pulled this joint effort out of the fire.
As a manufacturer, I doubt very much that we will “cave in” to letting NAED run IDEA. I suspect that there would be little to no trust allowing the likes of NAED to run IDEA.

If in fact Rioux is discharged and Naber’s NAED takes over, will the manufacturer’s group ever confront NAED with their “internal issues”? It is the manufacturer’s data that we depend on.
We as distributors should start to demand some public responses from our board. Suggest that you call Bill Elliott or one of the other past Chairs.
When it gets to the bottom line, I think we’ll find that the NAED board has been sold a bill of goods by not including everyone in the decision. if there was ever a vote.
Ill see if I can get a list of Board members with contact phone numbers. let’s get this aired out.
We as a group are looking like we can’t walk through a door.

As an employee of a electrical manufacturer, I wittnessed the classless attempt, by a naed employee, with backing from Todd K (Dakota supply), to take over IDEA with it’s own agenda in a breakout session in the early afternoon today at the IDEA meeting in Canada.
It is very apparent that naed and its leader threw Mike Rioux out to hijack the joint vision that manufacturers and and some distributors came together on.
We don’t have any say about who the prsident of naed is is, but a terrible wrong that has been committed against the vision of data synch and driving cost from the channel.Shame on Kodd K. and Tom N. You have no class.
This is a grab for power and to get your ego stroked.
IK

The loss of vision and focus bothers me, because the focus has been changed by a few NAED distributors and Tom Naber.
I and several of our people have been around Mike Rioux and he is far from burned out.So the reasons that Todd K of Dakota and Tom Naber gave, made it very apparent that a few distributors and Tom were making a grab for power.The vision I see is children on a playground beating on their chest.
What statred out as a co-operative venture between manufacturers and distributors has turned into the old fashion political hack grab for power. NAED is no not qualified to run or administrate IDEA as a department. The name Bethany Sullivan and Joe Sullivan was mentioned and they don not fit the bill from my viewpoint.
We as the workers need to empower our company management to grab NAED by the neck and jerk them up short.
The Todd K and Tom Naber show as carried out by Ed Orlet and his assumption that NAED will run IDEA, was an insult to the intelligence of people that I have worked with on the IDEA standards committee.
What a shame that the postive feelings of coming together and working for a common goal would be destroyed by petty politcs and the grab for power by Tom Naber.
I encourage us to talk off line and make sure our bosses know the concern.
Maybe other distributors will get engaged….and who ever was going to post the NAED Board list with phone numbers…please do it.
I intend to print these strings of comments and give them to my boss. Maybe he can get something done.
HKA

I don’t have a list of BOD phone numbers, but the names and companies are on the web. For NAED BOD go to http://www.naed.org/Common/ArticleLink.asp?currentpage=3440, for the IDEA BOD go to http://www.naed.org/Common/ArticleLink.asp?currentpage=3437, for the NAED Associates Advistory Council (which includes other manufacturers), go to http://www.naed.org/Common/ArticleLink.asp?currentpage=3430, and for the NAED Manufacturers Council, go to http://www.naed.org/Common/ArticleLink.asp?currentpage=3438. I think all of the names are hyperlinked to an email address.

Also, NAED has a BOD meeting later this week!!

Hre is the list a shown on NAED.org
Tammy Miller – Chair
CEO
Border States Electric Supply Richard Waterman – Chair-Elect
Executive VP & CEO
International Electric Supply Corp.
John Duda – Past Chair
Chairman & CEO
Butler Supply Glenn Goedecke – VP South Central Region
Alabama Division Manager
Mayer Electric Supply

Daniel Gray – VP Eastern Region
President & CEO
Independent Electric Supply
Thomas Isenberg – VP Western Region
President
Western Extralite Co.
Barry Boyer – VP- Elect South Central Region
President & CEO
Van Meter Industrial, Inc. Richard Williams – VP-Elect Eastern Region
President & COO
Dominion Electric Supply Co., Inc.
Jack Henderson – VP- Elect Western Region
Executive Vice President
Hunzicker Brothers, Inc. David White – Member-at-Large
Executive VP & COO
Shealy Electrical Wholesalers
Robert Reynolds, Jr. – Member-at-Large
Chairman, President & CEO
Graybar Clifton Kelly – Member-at-Large
President & CEO
Stoneway Electric Supply
Joe Huffman – Member-at-Large
VP Supplier Relations
Consolidated Electrical Distributors Larry Stern – Finance Chair
President
Standard Electric Supply Co.
Douglas Borchers – Yet Chair
VP Sales & Engineering
Dickman Supply, Inc. Todd Kumm – IDEA Vice-Chair
President & COO
Dakota Supply Group
Jack Mumford – Foudation Chair
President Western Region
Sonepar USA John Spoor -Foundation Chair-Elect
President & COO
State Electric Supply Co.
Larry Powers – Manufacturer Rep
Contact as many as you feel free to.
NAED as a group should be embarssed that they hired a person that would lead then down this path of power politics.

Have your manufacturer buddies contact the NAED Board at:
Tammy Miller – Chair
CEO
Border States Electric Supply Richard Waterman – Chair-Elect
Executive VP & CEO
International Electric Supply Corp.
John Duda – Past Chair
Chairman & CEO
Butler Supply Glenn Goedecke – VP South Central Region
Alabama Division Manager
Mayer Electric Supply

Daniel Gray – VP Eastern Region
President & CEO
Independent Electric Supply
Thomas Isenberg – VP Western Region
President
Western Extralite Co.
Barry Boyer – VP- Elect South Central Region
President & CEO
Van Meter Industrial, Inc. Richard Williams – VP-Elect Eastern Region
President & COO
Dominion Electric Supply Co., Inc.
Jack Henderson – VP- Elect Western Region
Executive Vice President
Hunzicker Brothers, Inc. David White – Member-at-Large
Executive VP & COO
Shealy Electrical Wholesalers
Robert Reynolds, Jr. – Member-at-Large
Chairman, President & CEO
Graybar Clifton Kelly – Member-at-Large
President & CEO
Stoneway Electric Supply
Joe Huffman – Member-at-Large
VP Supplier Relations
Consolidated Electrical Distributors Larry Stern – Finance Chair
President
Standard Electric Supply Co.
Douglas Borchers – Yet Chair
VP Sales & Engineering
Dickman Supply, Inc. Todd Kumm – IDEA Vice-Chair
President & COO
Dakota Supply Group
Jack Mumford – Foudation Chair
President Western Region
Sonepar USA John Spoor -Foundation Chair-Elect
President & COO
State Electric Supply Co.
Larry Powers – Manufacturer Rep
If the NAED board won’t listen to reason, then the manufacturers should move to seperate the IDW away from IDEA. Then open up a seperate data warehouse with all the other products that IDEA has.

The NAED Board meeting is scheduled on the 27th of this month.
Suggest that emails and phone calls start now.
Does anyone have a copy of the proposed TSC JV that can be posted?
I don’t have the whole document, but maybe someone does. It may be a large file, so maybe somone could post it and then give the site where it is at.
TCC

I don’t want to negative, but most NAED BOD members really don’t care. Most don’t have time to really pay attention. There is no reward and accountability.
It’s a good ole boys club.
That being said, they have and could do some worthwhile work.

All of this mess with Tom Naber asking to have the IDEA President replaced is a NAED BOD not getting the true facts. At some point the proposed JV with TSC will come out, and it may not be a good deal…but then it may be real good deal. Regardless of whether it is a god or bad deal, Naber needs to go and we need to find someone who will inform the complte board.
From the people I’ve talked to,no information about the JV or Rioux was ever circulated to the complete NAED Board.
Now Tom Naber has suggested a replacement at IDEA and I don’t think she can do the job.
The NAED BOD should start a search for a replacement to run NAED and get another publisher.
VJ

The call from Tom Naber this morning shows the lack of morals and character that we have hired as a President of NAED. He has told some untruths and made some false assumptions.
1.He presumes to speak for manufacturers ( maybe I missed an announcement from NEMA that they had turned all controls of their organization to NAED).
2.Mike Rioux was fairly straight forward (last week) that he didn’t feel burned out and said that he refused to sign a document that indicated that he was burned out.
3. Tom seems to think that he can force B.Sullivan(nothing about pictures) on distributors and manufacturers @ IDEA.
4. At the upcoming NAED BOD, they should explore, without Tom in the room, just exactly what has happened here. Otherwise, I need to run my business. What Tom says is not be trusted.
JCG

One would suspect that IDEA will head for a cave if Tom Naber has his way.
All of the progress could go up in dust.
It is a shame.
Charles D. W.

Nothing will happen to IDEA. It was bound to be derailed by large distributors.
We’ll use the VAN.
The way it has been derailed is not a proud day for NAED members, but that is the reason they joined..I guess.
What will be fun is to see how the manufacturers react.
NEMA must be dead.

The other poster might be right about NEMA, but I suspect that NEMA and the big manufacturers will pick their time and spot to deal with what has happened.
If the manufacturers were to take part of the IDEA offering and fund it seperately, that might not be all bad.
Too use the IDEA data services, you should not have to join NAED nor use their VAN.
An even better idea is that TSC offers some sort of data cert for a datawarehouse and re-sells VAN services just like IDEA. That way we don’t have to deal with NAED.

TM & CM

I’d sure like to know what actually happened with the JV. But we are probably better off if TSC does a van and data clean up with manufacturer blessing.
BP in Mass

Friends:

I am not a reader of this blog, but someone told me my name popped into the discussion (Note that I am not cloaking my post in anonymity).

Must say, facts seem in short supply hereabouts. Here are a some:

1) The entire NAED Board was fully briefed on the proposed JV and was fully familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. I know. I was one of the people who briefed them.

2) I have never been suggested or considered for the IDEA job, nor should I be because a) I am not the right guy for the job; and b) I don’t have an interest.

3) I am pretty well informed on the goings on, and can say for sure that no NAED executive or Direcor has ever expressed an interest in running IDEA or “taking over.” Quite the contrary, they want cross industry cooperation and synchrinized data, plain and simple.

3) The IDW is still a great idea with the potential to do just what both manufacturers and distributors want it to do, but it needs a fair bit of revision and tuning. One would think that an interested and informed group such as this appears to be might be able to contribute solid, practical suggestions to make IDEA work.

4) There may be anonymous folks with views differnt from mine, but how can anyone take their comments seriously without knowing where they come from?

Joseph A Sullivan
President
JSA

Joe Sullivan? JSA Associates?
Aren’t you a paid consultant for NAED?

It is not at all strange that Tom Naber would choose to trot out Joe Sullivan out to assure the unwashed masses of distributors that everything will be OK…”just because Joe says so.” nice try Joe. Just a note to Joe, your magic wand may work best in the Federal Bankruptcy courts, not with people who are knowledgeable of what has actually gone on with Tom and IDEA.

The major point here is that several of us are familiar with the very slanted report that Tom had Joe write to justify Tom’s take over move of IDEA. For years Tom preached loud and clear to anyone that would listen, that IDEA would fail.
When IDEA began to make money and be successful, Tom wanted to take it over.

Several of us distributors have been exposed to Tom Naber’s antics and power grabs from the past. Therefore with a forum like this, we don’t need to say who we are. We don’t need the hassle from Tom. Revenge and alienation is one of Tom’s best qualities. Tom is superb at running people away from NAED.

I just hope the current BOD keeps their eye on the ball and that IDEA can find someone to lead, so long as they can keep Tom Naber out of the day to day operations.
To the IDEA BOD, Todd Kumm is a Tom Naber plant.

No secret that I from time to time do paid work for NAED, as have the founders of this blog.

Whoever the poster in hiding may be, if he or she has real knowledge of my report, why not share actual quotes? If there are specific points with which you take issue, why not quite them specifically and state your differences?

Again signing my name in full

Joseph A Sullivan
President
JSA

OH, we are not JSA and Associates

Joe loves to toot his own horn. If you have time on your hands and want hear a real blow hard, give Joe a call.
You will notice above that he doesn’t deny manufacturing a report for Tom Naber.
__________________________________

The real issue is that Tom Naber hired Joe to interfer with the operation of IDEA, create a false crisis set of issues (like some one shouts fire in a theater) so that Tom could take over the day to day operation of IDEA. I think that is the classic definition of a power grab.
Tom even tried to get Joe Sullivan to monitor IDEA daily for a fee of course. That didn’t work so, Tom then task Joe to figure out away to manufacturer a crisis which he did.
In the mean time Tom floated the name of another Sullivan out to run IDEA even before Rioux had been fired by the Tom Naber junta.

It is my humble thoughts that manufacturers will not let Tom Naber or NAED run IDEA. This is where the manufacturers data is housed. This data is actually the property of the manufacturer. They will and should protect it.

The real problem is that we have a association president that thinks and acts as if he can tell the industry what is best for each company and the industry as a whole…and this from a person that has never run a distribution company.
Being a publisher (that is what Tom claims he is)he can and does take liberty with the truth when it suits him best and furthers his cause to run the electrical distribution channel.
We distributors should take back our organization and neogiate in good faith with the manufacturers.
BH
It would not bither me to have a retired distributor run the day to day of NAED until a valid search committee can find a replacement for Mr. Naber.

It amases me that distributors on the IDEA board could not seem to voice any coherant thoughts about the “direction” that IDEA was going since all Board memebers had to vote on a yearly agenda. Someone on the board had to approve a budget and a business plan. What’s the matter with them, can’t they read and attend meetings. Maybe that’s the problem, the distributors were just mailing in their vote to Tom Naber and not paying attention.
One would suspect that Tom Naber took that as a sign for him to step in and grab power…
Manufacturing a crisis like this at IDEA, with no real plan or vision to actually drive cost from the channel is pure folly.
I would say that manufacturers would be hard pressed to try and neogiate with someone like Tom, who is all about bad faith.
That is too bad.

JB

Afraid this issue with Tom and his power politics might slide through. Sure hope it doesn’t.

The NAED BOD needs to wakes up and run him off or neuter his posistion.
With the Rexel announcement about Dick Waterman, it would do the electical industry a lot of good if someone got a big pair and ran Tom off and take control, so we can do something about driving some cost out of the channel.

As a distributor I suspect that the proposed JV with TSC&IDEA would have addressed that issue, as they would have offered up a industry standard for data.

Otherwise distributors will spend all their time figuring out what the contractor is ordering. Or is that too scary for my fellow distributors to think about?

Has someone talked to Mike Rioux lately? He may have been on to something.
From what I have heard from a number of fellow distributors, he and Tim Powers(Hubbell) may have figured the situation out about contractors and their data issues.

For instance, if NAED were to take over IDEA and want to get into offering contractor data down stream, they would go head to head against TSC. I think TSC pretty much owns the contractor data market.
Or is it Tom Naber’s plan to pump as much cost as he can back into the channel to justify his job?

Would it make a lot of sense to JV with TSC?????

I am amazed at all the postings regarding “IDEA with a Vision” or maybe it should be IDEA with a destroyed vision.
It is fair to say that I for one now believe that IDEA was de-railed by none other than the NAED president with the help of a couple of consultants (B & J Sullivan) and some slight of hand with holding of information to the NAED BOD by Tom Naber.

Tom Naber even went so far as to block Mike Rioux from at least presenting the TSC/IDEA joint venture to the whole NAED Board.

Votes were falsified 9or maybe never counted)by Tom so that he could present a case to the executive board that did not have all the facts. Tom even went so far as to set up Todd Kumm and Tammy Miller with out all the information, because he thought no one was paying attention. Now Tom has embarrassed Tammy and Todd to the point where they can’t back down.

It is also apparent that Tom Naber has a very hard time getting along with people that he can’t control. Over the years I along with several other distributor friends have watched as Tom drove people away because they had good ideas and sometimes they were much smarter than he was.

Unfortunately the current NAED board may be too embarrassed to take action about removing Tom, reaching out to Rioux or even to TSC It will probably fall to Dick Waterman with the help of former Chair people like Pete De Steiger, Tom Cloud, Bill Elliott and such, to get Tom Naber dislodged from NAED and TED magazine.

As one poster put it, “even if the TSC/IDEA joint venture was semi-good”, it would have created a company that would be in charge of cleaning up data up and down the channel…even to our customers.

Instead Tom’s vision was to derail IDEA by picking a fight with Mike Rioux, pulling the wool over the NAED Executive Board and conning the new NEMA President (Evan Gaddis), to ask for Mike Rioux’s job. Talk about smelly politics!

One would suspect that the whole issue about IDEA and some of the shenageanons that Tom Naber has pulled might get swept under the collective NAED rug. So I suggest that distributors should start talking with the following people:
jsummerlin@mayerelectric.com;

barker@sprelec.com;

robert.reynolds@gbe.com;

tony.burr@sonepar-us.com;

sbellwoar@col-elec.com;

john.spoor@stateelectric.com

steven.margolius@hdsupply.com;

jrisk@kirbyrisk.com;

mcnaughj@mc-mc.com;

duda@butlersupply.com;

jeff.schaper@ge.com;

gabebe@wescodist.com;

gbruni@unitedelectric.com;

leehite@hiteco.com;

bruce.kogod@mauriceelectric.com;

dwaterman@rexelusa.com;

tmiller@border-states.com;

jhuff4321@aol.com;

tisenberg@westernextralite.com;

billelliott@elliottelectric.com;

stecot@ix.netcom.com
jajustillian@keyeleticsupply.com

bherr@dsginc.biz;

Did any of you catch Joe Salimando’s little hatchet job he pawns off as an article in TED Online yesterday?
Joe really needs to go back to organizing electrical labor unions. He doesn’t even come close to understanding what IDEA does and the importance of it.
He mocks an industry effort to drive cost out of the channel. On top of that, from what I know of the situation, he is back spouting out Tom Naber’s propaganda and cover up of the take over of IDEA by NAED.
Joe should stick with words he understands.
Harvey Blount, Chicago IL

The view from afar about this NAED take over…the long and the short view is that Tom Naber was going to loose control as the industry was passing him by.

It sounds like a copy of the proposed JV is floating around so one of our guys says. Sure hope it gets posted or sent around by email.
Jack Johnston Atlanta GA

This kind of bickering and mistrust is the reason I have chosen not to join NAED. This reenforces my decision.

Let’s see if I got this correct. The proposed JV would have offered up one standard and place to draw data from, including TSC.

NAED runs off the IDEA President with the help of Todd Kumm ( a NAED distributor). Right?
NAED is going to save the data world and IDEA? Right?
Exactly what is the NAED PLAN to bring distributors to the data well and get them to drink the data?
Did I miss it or what?

I’ve got the document and also the negatively biased report Joe Sullivan made to the NAED BOD which killed the deal. They are both in PDF format and I have no way to post them to this blog. If anybody can help me out and tell me how to post them I will.

If you can post the info, that would be awesome and maybe I can get my boss to understand the issue.

You might want to open a Facebook account, http://www.facebook.com; you could develop your own blog and post it there; or the easiest might be to go to http://www.foldershare.com post the file and then share the url on this blog. Foldershare is free and works great for me.

Or ask a techie in your company!!

IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture
Background:
For over 75 years the electrical channel has relied on the Trade Service Corporation (TSC) to provide
product and price file content to electrical contractors and electrical wholesale distributors. TSC sourced
information from manufacturers that served electrical channel and normalized the supplier information
provided to them in their own format such as the Price File Maintenance Service (PFMS). The service
information provided by TSC has been used by contractors for project estimation as well as serving as
the source data for distributor and contractor order management processes. In the mid-late 90’s the
electrical industry recognized the need to get a better grasp on supply chain operating costs and the
management and control of business information to the channel. NAED and NEMA through the support of
its members established the Industry Data Warehouse (IDW) and IDEA in 1998.
When the IDW was being developed in 1998 IDEA and TSC signed a 10 year, no cost data sharing
agreement, whereby each organization would provide business information to each other with the
eventual goal of having a single electronic data base product to serve the industry. IDEA and TSC have
continued to exchange data as strategic partners while offering duplicative solutions for the electrical
channel. The current data sharing agreement ends in July 2008.
While TSC has been the dominant data provider, IDEA’s IDW (now on version 2 and commonly referred
to as IDW2) has been steadily gaining acceptance and adoption. One reason that TSC is widely adopted
is that its data source and formats have been used throughout the industry for decades and are
integrated into business operating systems and enterprise resource planning applications. The TSC Price
File Maintenance Service (PFMS) continues to be used as the primary data source for 100’s of legacy
system electrical distributors.
After eight years, IDW data standards have been firmly established and 150 distributor companies and
the top 185 manufacturer companies have integrated the IDW into their operations. Even though TSC
and IDEA’s IDW offer a sole method for business information, 90% of the manufacturer community still
continue to send business information files through email, CD Rom and methods other than the just the
IDW and TSC. While positive progress has been made, the industry still has a long way to go to reach the
full cost saving benefits of data synchronization throughout the entire channel. In an effort to eliminate
confusion in the channel and streamline the flow of business information from the supplier to the end
customer, TSC and IDEA initiated discussions in November 2005 on ways the two organizations could
leverage their combined resources, work together and expedite the goal of data synchronization
envisioned by the founding companies of IDEA. Similar discussions were previously attempted 2002 –
2003 when TSC was owned by i2 Technology Solutions.
Proposal:
IDEA and TSC recommended that they form a Joint Venture (JV) LLC that would take advantage of the
combined IDW and TSC data synchronization resources to create a win for the entire electrical industry
and both companies, making it one of the most significant partnerships in industrial distribution history.
The joint venture would have provided the channel with the greatest opportunity to reach critical mass
resulting in a single high quality business information bank that increased sales, lowered operating costs
and improved business processes for electrical suppliers, distributors and contractors.
The Joint Venture LLC:
Both IDEA and TSC have multiple products and service lines. Each company agreed to contribute assets
that represent the IDW and the equivalent TSC electrical distribution products and data components to a
JV. Under the plan, each organization would still be able to make a profit, retain their other non JV
products and services, but combine their data content products and efforts to provide a single face to the
industry. In the JV model IDEA would have been the brand/face to the industry with TSC providing a
behind the scenes role in the operations and production areas.
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
2
o Strategic and Business Plan and Budget Process
If the JV was approved, a JV Strategic and Business plan as well as a budget would have been prepared
and approved by the JV Board of Directors. The Strategic plan would look 3- 5 years into the future and
the business plan and budget would address each year of operation. The JV staff would update and
prepare the plans and budget annually for approval prior to the start of the new calendar and fiscal year
(CY=FY). A draft strategic plan was prepared.
2. JV Name and Branding – How would the name and products have been branded?
The JV would have been named “IDEA Industry Data Warehouse, LLC”. The brand names of individual
products contributed would not be changed at inception to reduce confusion with existing customers. For
example PFMS would have been called IDEA PFMS. A public relations and marketing firm would have
been contracted to help develop recommendations regarding branding and marketing.
3. Financial – How would the JV funded and monies allotted to each organization?
Each organization would have contributed revenue/assets with the combined income of both
organizations defined as “Cost of Goods Sold” (COGS). All product and service fees would have been
billed by the JV, with IDEA staff performing the AP/AR function. Money received would first be used to
cover the agreed upon COGS paid to IDEA and TSC based on the percentage of their contribution.
Under the proposed agreement, each of the contributing parties would administer their own staff. Both
IDEA and TSC would retain responsibility for paying salaries and benefits. Each party would have been
responsible to deliver agreed upon services to the JV without the JV having any authority to impact their
individual businesses or profitability
The percentage distribution of the COGS could be changed by unanimous agreement of the senior
management. For example, if one of the partners transfers or otherwise shifts effort to the other party, the
percentages would be adjusted to reflect the value of that exchange.
If income did not cover COGS, then each party would receive less money, but in the same percentage.
Each would still be responsible for fulfilling their obligations to the JV even if it meant they had to lose
money. By aligning each organization to the same goals, it was expected that they would be highly
motivated to control unnecessary expenses.
Any revenue that exceeded COGS would have been split evenly (50/50) between the partners. This
percentage would not be changed over time. Essentially, each company was buying stock with their
contribution and the ownership could not be diluted arbitrarily or unilaterally.
It was envisioned that there would be immediate growth in the sale of products and services as the
market confusion is removed and there was a single data content provider (JV).
4. Investments – How would the JV determine how funds are invested?
The JV could decide to invest in research and development for new products and services. In such cases,
each of the partners would be asked to contribute 50% of any capital requirements. All income from new
products and services would not be included in COGS calculation or assignment. Any resultant products,
service, copyrights, or patents would be owned by the JV and all profits from the new products or services
would be split evenly.
5. Management – proposed management structure and governance of the JV.
Governance – The JV governance would have been provided through a Board of Directors (BOD). The
BOD would have consisted of 4 Directors one each from NEMA and NAED and 2 from TSC. The IDEA
president would have provided staff support to the BOD. In the event that the BOD was unable to reach
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
3
consensus an independent arbitration review process would have been implemented. Keeping the BOD
small would have enabled them to react to market changes and operational issues more quickly.
Any decisions that required a change in strategy, capital expenditures, or mergers and acquisitions would
require BOD review and approval.
Management – day to day operation would have been jointly managed by the IDEA President and TSC
Vice President of Operations for year 1. In year 2 the IDEA President would have assumed the role of JV
COO.
6. Operations – how would the two entities work together and who has what responsibility?
Standards – The IDEA Standards Committee (ISC) would have continued to serve the electro-industry as
the E-commerce standards body. TSC staff assigned to the JV would have been added to the ISC and
the Data Content, Product Code and Education Subcommittees as shown in figure 1. The IDEA
Standards Director would continue to manage the ISC along with the elected Chair and Vice Chair.
The IDW standard (Product Descriptor Data) would serve as the baseline data standard for the JV.
Industry data standards and formats and TSC data standards and formats would have been harmonized
via the ISC and the relevant subcommittees. In addition, the Industry enriched data schema and the TSC
e-Catalog Connect enriched data schema would have been harmonized via the ISC, while protecting any
requirements for data in existing formats. The UNSPSC would have been the industry product codes
used by the JV and cross referenced against the TSC commodity codes and other frequently
used/requested product codes such as FSC, NSN, and GPC etc.
TSC staff would not participate in ISC subcommittees that pertain to IDX2 or other non IDW areas
Figure 2 provides a summary of how the JV will collect process and produce data products. A description
of the processes follows.
IDEA Standards Committee
TSC JV Staff
Data Content
TSC JV Staff
EDI
B2B
XML
SC Chair
Education
TSC JV Staff
Product
Identification
Barcode / EPC
Product Code
TSC JV Staff
Figure 1
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
4
Data Sourcing – The JV would have sourced all manufacturer data, including product and pricing data
(transactional information) as well as enriched (catalog) information including product images and
technical data (MSDS, line drawings, etc.) directly from the manufacturer. The direct sourced information
would have included initial data loads as well as all price file and data updates. All information provided to
the JV by TSC would have been sent to the manufacturer for verification. Unless specifically rejected by
the manufacturer, this data would have been considered approved for use in the JV product data base.
IDEA would have assigned a Data Sourcing Manager to the JV to oversee the data sourcing program
along with a TSC JV counterpart. TSC would have contributed its current staff of 6 to contact and source
data and updates from manufacturers. A data sourcing plan and process would have been developed to
focus on electrical distributor line card vendors as the top priority. All information provided to the JV data
base would have been the intellectual property of the manufacturer.
Data Content Quality Review – All data provided to the JV data base would have been reviewed for
completeness and compliance with the ISC standards and rules including UPC validation. Manufacturer
data would have been loaded in a pre production database server where it would have been validated
against industry scrubbing and certification rules. Following the initial validation process, the information
would have been reviewed for the quality and completeness of product descriptions and codes. Data
quality and error reports would have been provided to the manufacturer for action to complete. The
validation, review and correction process would have been repeated as necessary until the information is
complete.
IDEA would have contributed (1) Data Content Manager to manage the data content and quality program
along with a TSC counterpart assigned to the JV. IDEA would have also contributed 2 data analysts and
TSC would have provided up to 8 data mapping and 10 content validation staff to support the data quality
process. The JV data content quality team would have also offered fee based services to manufacturers
to help assess and manage their data content and processes.
Customer Outputs and Media
Production
IDW2
TSC
IDX2
FTP
Print
CD/Disk
Media, Output &
Delivery
(9 TSC)
IS, Development, Testing, & QA Audit & Issue
Resolution (11 TSC) (6 TSC)
Post Prod QA
(1 IDEA)
Data
Review
&
Quality
Control
Load in
IDW2
DVE/
DAC
Process
Error
report
sent to
mfr and
DQ team
Fail
Pass
Data Mapping & DIT
(1 IDEA/8 TSC)
Content Validation
(1 IDEA/10 TSC)
S
O
U
R
C
E
M
A
N
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
E
R
Data
New Data/
Commodity
Data
Existing
Direct
Mfr Sourcing
(1 IDEA/6 TSC)
Figure 2
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
5
Data Certification – After the manufacturer’s data was processed through the data content and quality
review phase, the information would have been routed to the IDW2 Data Validation Engine (DVE) for final
check and certification. Information that passed the DVE would have been certified and posted in the IDW
production data base. Information that failed the DVE final check would have been delivered to a data
utility work station where the manufacturer or JV staff, if providing support services, could make
corrections on-line and resubmit the information to the DVE for certification. DVE certification and error
reports would be generated and routed to the manufacturer and JV data content and quality review staff.
The Data Content Manager and staff would monitor this phase. Manufacturers would have been notified
electronically that their data was certified and the IDW administrative web site would have posted the
certification date for each manufacturer. For initial JV operations only transactional information would
have been subject to the DVE/certification process.
Production and Product Delivery – Certified manufacturer data would have been delivered to the
production data base. Spot checks of the production data would have been completed by the data
content and quality team to ensure that no formatting miscues or data errors were introduced.
All IDW system and server components would have been used for the JV data production as currently
provided under contract to IDEA by Activant Solutions. Data would have been extracted from the IDW
production system to populate the TSC database for the tape, CD and print media.
Manufacturer Data Authorization – All manufacturers that provided data to the JV would have held full
authorization control over their business information as structured in the IDW today. The manufacturer
could approve authorization to customer trading partners and other companies that requested their data
including access to product data, published pricing, distributor cost and net cost into stock. The
authorization scheme would have been applied to data that TSC requested for its hosted database in
support of the JV hard media products.
Data Products to the Market – The JV would have ensured support and delivery of data products
currently sent individually by IDEA and TSC today. While the objective was to convert as many customers
as possible to the electronic media (IDW) it was anticipated that legacy media users would have to be
supported for some time. IDEA would transport all electronic data files by File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or
the IDX from the IDW2production data base while all hard media products, tape, CD and print would be
delivered by the TSC production system and staff.
Commodity Products – There are 13 commodity product groups such as wire and cable that would
require maintenance of UPC codes, descriptions, UNSPC product codes and list pricing. The JV would
continue delivery of the generic/commodity code information currently being provided to the market place
by TSC. A replacement or upgrade to the TSC generic product data would be considered by the JV
following completion of an NEMA BIS formulae program contracted by IDEA.
Net Cost Into Stock – Net Cost into Stock information is available today from certain manufacturers
through the IDW. Manufacturers may send a separate Net Cost price sheet to a distributor specific
location using the unique Identifier assigned to that location. In addition the IDW may parse the Net Cost
into Stock data routed via an EDI 845 that contains the IDW ID number. TSC provides a service today to
its distributor customers whereby TSC will load Net Cost data into the customers file if the distributor
provides them the Net Cost information. With the JV, Net Cost into Stock Data would only be delivered via
the IDW, unless otherwise authorized by the manufacturer, as it is the principal means to ensure
manufacturer control and authorization over the confidential pricing information.
7. Customer Facing Activities –face to the industry and what roles would each organization play?
Customer facing activities would have been the primary responsibility of IDEA staff assigned to the JV as
well as other IDEA staff that will provide partial support to the JV.
Marketing / Communications –a PR /marketing firm would have been be contracted to assist with initial
branding and marketing recommendations. A JV marketing committee would have been established
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
6
consisting of staff from both organizations with the primary responsibility of crafting a marketing plan. All
press releases, communiqués, marketing material would have been initiated by the IDEA JV staff with
input from TSC. The IDEA staff would have been responsible for all PR and customer and marketing
communications.
Sales – the new customer outside sales would have been managed by IDEA staff assigned to support the
JV. TSC would have held the responsibility to operate all inside sales and reorders. A sales plan would
have been crafted, which would have specified the roles and responsibilities of each organization. IDEA
staff would have been the management lead for all sales activities and programs
Trade Shows – participation at industry trade shows would have been the primary responsibility of the
IDEA sales and marketing staff assigned to the JV. TSC JV staff would have been available to
supplement staff requirements as needed.
Industry Relations – IDEA JV staff would have the management lead and responsibility for interfacing with
all software ERP providers, National Account organizations, Trade Associations and Standards
organizations. TSC staff would have supplemented IDEA staff.
Financials, Accounting, Invoicing and Billing – All customer accounts pertaining to the IDW and TSC
electrical distribution products would have been centralized into a JV accounting program using IDEA’s
ERP accounting program. Separate financial statements would have been prepared and reported.
Separate accounts and tax reporting would have been implemented for the JV. IDEA staff assigned to
support the JV would have been assigned the management lead for the accounts and financials.
Customer Service – All initial customer service inquiries, whether by telephone or on-line would have
been handled by IDEA staff assigned to the JV. The customer service program would have used IDEA’s
800 toll free number as well as its CRM application. The CRM program integrated into IDEA’s Website
would have enabled on line customer service requests. JV customer service staff would have addressed
the problem (Tier 1) or forward the support case to subject matter experts (Tier 2). All customer support
inquiries would have been entered in the CRM system as a Case, which would have monitored and
tracked for satisfactory completion. A customer service business process and issue resolution program
would have been introduced.. Figure 3 shows an outline of the Customer Service structure
Customer Implementations – All new customers that elected to participate in the IDW would have been
processed by IDEA staff assigned to the JV, receiving an on boarding kit and hands on training and
support. New customers that select hard media products would have been processed by TSC JV staff.
Single entry CRM Net Suite
800 Number
Single web address
Manufacturer Support
Data Content
DAC
Manufacturer Reps IDW2
Distributor
Product Driven
IDW2 and TSC products
Contractor Products
Trade supports
Routed by CS
Direct TSC initially
FIGURE 3
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
7
8. Legal Components – What terms and conditions will be implemented to protect the
organizations?
Both partners will have legal representation in the negotiation of the final terms and conditions. During
these discussions, the parties would have used their best efforts to protect the continuing operations of
both entities as well as the JV.
Anti-trust – Neither IDEA or TSC parties believed there would have been any Anti-Trust issues
associated with this agreement. A data sharing agreement has already been in place for almost ten years
and both parties have cooperated on a number of different projects. Legal Counsel would have
completed a more detailed analysis.
Formation and Filing – Once approved the necessary IRS forms, Operating Agreements; State
registrations; Identification and filing of Registered Representatives; and other state, federal or local
jurisdiction requirements would have been completed. The legal filings were set for the State of Delaware.
Intellectual Property – In creating the JV, it was the goal of the parties to share their IP as required to
provide the greatest opportunity for success of the venture. As stated earlier, the business information
used to populate the IDW2 and hard media products would remain the IP of the manufacturer.
The names “IDEA’ and “IDW” would have been used by the JV to create a single face to the industry.
Standards that have already been placed in the public domain would not be an issue. Where proprietary
formats or data constructs are used, there would have been a need to grant the JV the right to use such
formats or data.
Termination – If either party decided to leave the JV, they would have been able to do so may do so by
selling their ownership. The surviving partner would held the first right of refusal to match any bona fide
offer. If there was no offer on the table, the partner wishing to exit would provide a market value price for
their 50% share. The other partner would have the right to accept the amount as either the purchaser or
seller
If either party is purchased, such change in ownership would have to be approved by the other party. If
the other party no longer wanted to be in business with the new owner, the other party would have been
able to make an offer as above with the new owner having the right to accept the offer as the purchaser
or the seller. If either party declared bankruptcy or ceased to exist the surviving party would have had the
first right of refusal to match any bona fide offer for the terminating party’s assets.
Sale/Divesture – If the JV determined that it is in the best interest of all of the parties to terminate the
operation of the JV or to sell any parts of the JV (including rights to products or services, intellectual
property, or other assets), it would have taken a super majority of the BOD. In such a case, the BOD
would have been able to sell the assets or the whole LLC and distribute equally any monies received after
reasonable expenses.
9. Other Products/Services and Vertical Markets – How would the JV address other products and
services offered by TSC today but not IDEA? Will the JV apply this model to other vertical
market?
It was the intention of the JV to introduce new products and services, as well as include other vertical
markets in the model. The JV would have focused on data synchronization between the electrical
manufacturer and distributor partner while allowing each of the founding organizations to continue to
produce their individual products and services that they are not contributing to the JV on day one.
Product Cross Reference/Comparator – Today, TSC offers an electrical cross reference product called
Comparator. This product has evolved from a printed publication to a database / web-based product.
The JV would have the right to control this product and all research and content processes on day one.
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
8
However, we expected that TSC would continue to sell this product independent of the JV until further
research and review of the Comparator product is completed with industry representatives.
Manufacturer Data Services – based on the experiences of both organizations data quality and data
process still remains a tremendous challenge for the electrical industry. A Manufacturer data service
program would definitely be a new service opportunity for the JV. If the JV was formed it would have
developed services for manufacturers as a service option for companies that are interested in improving
their data quality or outsourcing the functions necessary to facilitate data management and
synchronization with their trading partners.
End User Electrical Contractor Market – A key business area for TSC is the electrical contractor market.
Today, TSC offers a family of products to the electrical contractor under the Tra-Ser brand. It was the
intent of both parties to review this market and to eventually apply a similar approach to contributing this
product to the JV. In the mean time the JV agreement would have allowed IDEA to develop and offer
independently of the JV, a service to enable electrical distributors the capability to provide their product
and pricing information to the end user community. It was expected that the Tra-Ser product and any
IDEA developed distributor to end customer solution would be complimentary products and not
duplicative.
Other Vertical Markets – With the exception of the electrical channel there is no equivalent of the IDW or
similar distributor data synchronization program in other industrial MRO verticals. As many NEMA and
NAED members serve other MRO channels and after successful execution of the JV model in the
electrical industry, it was expected to apply the JV model to similarly situated vertical markets. The JV
would be able to take advantage of the existing TSC Plumbing, HVAC and Industrial data products to
jump start this program. However, the JV agreement would permit both organizations to develop and offer
services independently of the JV to other markets without restriction.
Why did TSC want to pursue this partnership?
“TSC continues to see an increasing need for new and improved data elements to assist in driving more
efficiencies in the channel such as GS1 (GTIN), customized descriptions, enhanced unit of measure and
package quantity information for warehousing and bar coding, etc. This list continues to grow as does the
need for additional software functionality and products. TSC continues to hear these challenges from our
customers, and like IDEA have started several initiatives to address them.
When TSC reviewed the ongoing investment along with the continued changes in the distribution
industry, we felt TSC could better serve their customers and the industry as a whole by partnering with
IDEA. The JV would have allowed both entities to focus on what we do best and enable us to support
and compliment one another’s strengths while maintaining our mutual goals of profitability and data
synchronization.
The partnership brings a united focus on the aforementioned initiatives (along with others), that will allow
us to better address the needs of all supply chain constituents. Furthermore, many of the restrictions
previously placed upon us by our former owners have been removed due to the new ownership structure.
Over the years we’ve developed many processes, systems, products and experienced personnel, which
will help us in addressing our common goals. The average tenure of our staff in the electrical industry
employees is well over 10 years. Our experience and dedication combined with that of the IDEA
employees will provide us with a very strong and knowledgeable team.
On day one, the JV will continue to provide the services we both provide today, however over time,
employee responsibilities, the data and products we provide to the industry will continue to change and
improve. By partnering, the industry will benefit overall as confusion from the market is removed and
common standards and products are adopted. Data Synchronization will take hold, and the opportunity to
expand our model deeper into the supply chain and other verticals will be more readily accessible.”
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
9
Why did IDEA want to pursue this partnership?
If IDEA’s mission remains improvement of the channel’s productivity and lower operating costs through
the synchronization of standardized business information, the JV would have expedited the mission while
removing any conflict and confusion about data content providers and quality. The JV would have
enabled the industry to take advantage of the combined resources of both organizations resulting in a
collaborative effort. This would have resulted in the collective ability to obtain and deliver the best
business information products for the supply chain resulting in greater productivity for the entire channel.
The JV would enable the harmonization of industry and commercial business information standards and
formats, simplifying and facilitating the interface with manufacturer and distributor business operating and
ERP systems as well as legacy programs.
IDEA and the IDW would have been the face to the industry while TSC provides subject matter experts
and resources in a very important support role.
Benefits
1. The JV would marshal their collective resources to process and deliver business information that
would meet the needs of the entire electro-channel without having to edit, compare or search for
other resources. All data would flow through a single source to the marketplace, ensuring much
better consistency and accuracy from supplier to the distributor and on to the contractor.
2. The data sync objective would have been met on a much faster time schedule. With the
combined market share contributed by both parties, the JV would have been in a much stronger
position to drive adoption of the industry data standards and leverage support from the software
providers to adopt the same, for easier integration into NAED member business systems. While
IDEA has made progress in the last 2 years estimates suggest that it would take 20% annual
growth for ten years to reach the same market that would come with the JV.
3. By virtue of the JV and creation of a single harmonized database, industry operating costs would
be reduced, overall customer satisfaction increased and industry productivity improved by 2-5%.
Assuming that annual sales in the electrical channel are $60B, resultant savings could be in the
$1.2B to $3B range, improving the Electrical Distribution’s market strength as the channel of
choice and low cost supply chain to market.
4. The JV would virtually eliminate confusion and uncertainty in the marketplace and improve
adoption of the data sync model original envisioned by the founding IDEA companies. With a
single industry backed data provider, manufacturers would better support the IDW and steer their
trading partners to the JV database/products. Distributors previously uncertain as to which data
product to use would be afforded multiple product options, all with the same business information.
Creating the JV would make it easier for late adopters to participate in one of the many data
products. This will increase general usage and will make market coverage greater.
5. IDEA would gain tremendous resources to better source, review and work with manufacturers to
improve the quality of their business information. The TSC staff of over 40 professionals would
assist with the “heavy lifting” and greatly augment the limited IDEA resources. That means many
more manufacturers can be contacted and their data prepared to meet the industry standards and
business requirements.
6. There would be resources to offer manufacturers assistance in the development of data in
standard formats. Not only would that benefit the distributor, but having it done under the
auspices of the JV would have ensured the integrity and manufacturer’s control over the data.
These services would result in higher levels of data integrity and accuracy, resulting in improved
order management processes.
7. With the ever increasing distributor demand for catalog data and images to meet customer
demand and facilitate online, order entry systems, the JV would be able to offer access to the
TSC enriched data and product images. This would have provided immediate benefit to the
IDEA Trade Service Joint Venture LLC 10/4/2007
10
entire channel as this information has been very difficult to obtain from the manufacturer
community.
8. All the information provided by the JV to the market place would be approved by the
manufacturer eliminating any doubt as to its authenticity, origin and ownership. The JV would also
be able to provide manufacturer data service resources to assist manufacturers with limited
resources to meet their trading partner’s demands.
9. The data standards and validation rules would be based on those established by the industry,
removing any proprietary formats and formulae.
10. IDEA and TSC would have much greater coverage of the manufacturers than they do individually
today. This means there is more coverage of the market and more reasons for distributors to
participate.
11. IDEA would be the face to the market for all products and services. Even TSC products would be
sold under the IDEA brand so distributors only see one entity. TSC is assuming a behind the
scenes support role in return for long term cash flow and the potential for sustained future
earnings.
12. Once the products are “normalized” it would have been easier for the software companies to
finalize a single interface to the data. This is a huge benefit to NAED members, as the cost to add
that functionality can be amortized across the user base. They would no longer have to decide if
there is sufficient business for any individual format, as they would all be coordinated. This wouldl
assist in getting greater acceptance in the industry.
13. Having additional resources, it is possible for IDEA to make strides on a number of “back burner”
projects. It will be possible to take on more projects that can have a beneficial impact on the
industry and the distributors.
14. The JV is projected to make a profit. NAED and NEMA would be able to utilize their share of
these profits to support their members as they see fit. As the current contracts are normalized,
the income to the JV should improve slightly. Using profits to pay rebates will allow the “for profit”
culture to grow without limiting the good that can be done for the industry and the participants
from NAED.
15. The JV would gain permission to use proprietary TSC data formats which are in wide use
throughout the industry and are accepted by most major software vendors.
16. Since the JV top management would be led by IDEA staff, then all day-to-day processes will
focus on IDEA’s mission of synchronizing standardized business information in the channel and
taking cost out of the supply chain.
17. The JV model could be replicated in other vertical markets delivering other channel information
that can be used by NAED’s integrated distributor members as well as NAED associate
manufacturer and NEMA members that serve multiple channels
Summary
The JV / partnership provided the best and most expeditious opportunity to reach the original goals of the
founders. The TSC and IDEA teams worked to find common ground and resolve major differences. The
trust and cooperation that was evident through the negotiations was very positive. By not taking
advantage of this opportunity, the channel will suffer through continued confusion, higher operating costs
and disparate data sets. The destruction of trust and any cohesion in the market will make the original
objectives much more difficult if not impossible to attain.

The above report was presented to NEMA and the IDEA Board. The following is Joe’s report to NAED.
b u s i n e s s s o l u t i o n s b e y o n d t h e n u m b e r s
Review of the Status of the IDW2
and
Analysis of Proposed Joint Venture between IDEA/IDW2
And Trade Service Corporation
Submitted to :
NAED Board of Directors
May 1st, 2007
Joseph Sullivan, CFA
John Heiman
The Status of the IDW2, and the Risks and Merits of the Proposed
IDEA/Trade Service Joint Venture
Executive Summary
Scope
In order to assist the NAED Board of Directors reach an informed decision on the
proposed Joint Venture between IDEA and Trade Service Corporation, JSA was asked to:
a) examine the performance of the IDW, and determine its usefulness and completeness
from a distributor’s standpoint; b) carefully review the Joint Venture proposal; and c)
report to the NAED Board of Directors on our findings and recommendations.
Status of IDW2
In summary, we found that the IDW2 has made progress in a number of areas. It has
generally good access and connectivity. The data in the IDW2 is deemed to be more timely
than that of TSC for the most part, and the accuracy is also deemed higher. There is a
good possibility that automated net pricing data may become available. Pricing tends to be
favorable compared to TSC. Progress has been made in other areas as well.
Nevertheless, the IDW2 has a number of critical challenges to overcome if it is merely to
survive, let alone fulfill its mission of being an industry-central repository of timely product
and pricing information. Among the more important of these are:
a) Market penetration of the IDW2 is limited, with only 29.7% of NAED members
and 36.3% of NEMA members using the service (that is 9% of all electrical
distributors, and 3.7% of all electrical manufacturers);
b) Utilizations rates are low even by those distributors who do use the IDW2, with
only 27.5% of them doing so to a level that would permit data synchronization;
c) Data availability through the IDW2 is limited and uneven; the database is very
incomplete even in terms of data from those manufacturers who do participate;
d) Technical problems at IDW2 prevent automated transmission of net into stock
pricing data to the IDW2 by manufacturers, and this is the source of much
unhappiness among manufacturers;
e) Capacity problems may exist;
f) IDW2 is dependent on TSC for a substantial amount of its data input and has no
independent means of gathering the data that TSC provides.
Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the IDW2 as it is presently
organized and operated is not capable on its own of providing acceptable service levels to
its customers. If the present arrangement with TSC is not extended, IDW2’s business
model must change. This change could involve the proposed joint venture with TSC, or
IDEA could opt for another approach. In any event, the status quo cannot be maintained.
The Proposed IDEA/ Trade Service Corporation Joint Venture
At the conceptual level, a good business case can be made for the proposed Joint Venture.
However, this is a complex transaction. As with all such, “the Devil is in the details.” In
this particular case, the details have simply not been adequately considered and worked out
for prudent people to form conclusions and make decisions about the proposal.
Weaknesses in the proposal include:
a) Proposed governance plan diminishes IDEA/IDW2 accountability, and would
reduce NAED to the status of a minor participant with little influence on behalf of
distributors;
b) The division of partnership revenues and profits between IDEA and TSC has not
been agreed;
c) Benefits to NAED and NEMA members commensurate to those that would flow to
TSC owners have not been treated at all;
d) The respective functions and obligations of IDEA and TSC to the partnership have
not been worked through in reasonable detail;
e) What would happen if a partner withdrew or did not perform, and the complex
and critical questions of how to be sure there would not be a service failure of
IDW2 in case of a breakup of the partnership have been treated inadequately;
f) The negotiating parties seem to be working towards a July 2007 deadline to
complete the deal—an unrealistic and risky timeline.
IDEA is handicapped in the negotiations by the lack of a clear, ready-to-go alternative.
IDEA simply does not appear to have an executable plan for going it alone. This also
makes NAED’s decision more difficult. The JV is a good or bad deal, compared to what,
exactly? What happens if the deal falls through? Is it a situation of “JV or bust?” Was
IDEA on a fast track to extinction before TSC approached it with this proposal? If not,
what was its plan?
It appears to be both prudent and desirable for IDEA to continue in good faith discussions
with TSC. However it is very clear that any request for unconditional approval of the
proposal would be premature. Far more must be known. There are very important,
inadequately addressed risks and uncertainties. Furthermore, it is possible that attractive
alternatives may exist.
Recommendations
1) Approve continued good-faith negotiations between IDEA and TSC, but do not
give open-ended approval to develop and present a final deal; rather, set clear
conditions and parameters to which the negotiators must adhere (see suggestions
below);
2) As a condition of approval, require IDEA to within 30 days develop and present
and a ready-to-go alternative plan with clearly expressed operating details and a
cash-based 3-year pro-forma;
3) Require certain high priority elements of the JV plan be completed to the
satisfaction of NAED and presented sequentially, well before the proposed final
deal is presented for approval;
4) Instruct the negotiators to disregard any arbitrary negotiating deadlines – rushing is
always a risky thing — the deal is ready when it is ready and not before.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Suggested Conditions and Parameters for IDEA’s Negotiators
1) Governance: A simple plan of governance with direct accountability to NAED and
NEMA is necessary. It is also necessary for NAED and NEMA to have equal weight
with TSC. One way to accomplish this might be:
a. The present IDEA executive committee (or the NAED and NEMA
presidents as members thereof) serving as half of the of the JV board;
b. Possibly an agreed neutral party to preside and break ties;
c. Clear limitations of the presider’s powers;
d. Explicit power of members to call special meetings and specify agenda items
2) Division of revenues/profits: Require that clear mechanisms exist to adjust
distributions according to changes in the contributions of the partners, or the cost
or making such contributions.
3) Unique benefits should flow to NAED members: TSC is in the business of making
money for its owners. NAED and NEMA are non-profit organizations for the
benefit of their members. In the proposed JV, TSC quite reasonably expects to
make money. The equivalent in terms of unique benefits not available to the rest of
the industry should flow to NAED and NEMA members. If the NAED Board is
satisfied with the current $100 discounted IDW2 fee, so be it, although it might be
possible to negotiate better terms. Whatever the case, it should be irrevocable and
similar advantages should be prohibited to non members.
4) Clarification of operating details must have an immediate priority: The compete
operating details of the JV should be worked out, a cash pro-forma made, and the
whole approved by NAED before additional transaction details are finalized.
5) A complete schedule of the obligations of each party must have an immediate
priority: As a subset of (4), the respective obligations of IDEA and TSC must be
derived from the detailed operating plan, together with performance parameters,
and these must be the basis of the JV documents themselves.
6) An orderly and protective mechanism for withdrawal, non-performance or failure
must be created: It must provide at least:
a. A practical operating mechanism to assure complete continuity of the
IDW2 during a reasonable transition period in case of withdrawal;
b. Financial and operating rights that accrue to the JV or remaining partner
in case of non-performance by, or business failure of a partner, to assure
IDW2 continuity as well as fairness in the division of revenues and profits;
c. Such protections against bankruptcy of a partner as can be devised.
d. An agreed mechanism to price the buyout of one partner by the other,
subject to all the prior provisions.
– 1 –
Current status of the IDW2
We were asked to examine the performance of the IDW and determine its usefulness and
completeness from a distributor’s standpoint. In order to do this we communicated with
management and technical personnel from certain distributorships, including four
significant regional independents, one major, certain smaller companies, and certain
industry experts. We asked them for their observations and opinions, and also for any
empirical data they had that would help us objectively assess the situation. We also
requested and received specific data from IDEA.
In our meetings and interviews, we focused on the IDW as opposed to the rest of IDEA’s
service lines. This was because the proposed Joint Venture appears to involve only the IDW.
Utilization of the IDW
According to information provided by IDEA, the following is an overview of the utilization
of the IDW by manufacturers and distributors, and graphs showing market penetration:
Item February 28th, 2007 February 28th, 2006
Distributor subscribers 138 88
Dist. actively downloading 131 81
Active manufacturers 165 companies 145 companies
Mfg. data provided by TSC 208 companies 226 companies
IDW2 Market Penetration
Distributors Manufacturers
IDW2 Users
131
NAED Members
441
All Distribut’s
1450
IDW2 Mfg’s
165
NEMA Members
455
All Mfg’s
4400
As shown in the graph above, IDEA has achieved 29.7% penetration of NAED
membership, and 9% of NAED’s best estimate of the total electrical distributor market. It
has penetrated 36.3% of NEMA membership, and 3.7% of IDEA’s own estimate of total
manufacturers. Of course, the 165 active mfg’s do include many of the largest.
JSA requested an analysis of the levels of utilization of the IDW by distributor subscribers.
As can be seen in the following chart, 68, or slightly more than half of those distributors
29.7% of NAED members
are active IDW2 users
36.3% of NEMA
members use IDW2
– 2 –
who are actively downloading, were accessing data one or more times per week. NOTE,
for data synchronization to work effectively, downloads must occur as changes are made,
which could be as frequently as more than once a day. Therefore, only 27.5% of current
IDEA distributor users have any chance of achieving data synchronization.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
> once/wk
Once/wk
Monthly
Never
Rates of IDW2 Utilization by Numbers of Subscribers
2007 2006
Data Availability in the IDW
In preparing this report, JSA made note of numerous opinions of IDEA data quality.
However, we considered it more valuable to review empirical data if we could obtain it.
Fortunately, in addition to certain information provided to us directly by IDEA, we were
able to obtain an analysis performed by a large independent on the data available from
IDEA for 94 of their vendors. The following is summarized from that analysis:
94 Manufacturer Sample of IDW2 Data
39
91
79
26
10
30 30
10
Complete brand an d weight data
Any pricin g d ata
3rd col. pricing
2nd col. pricing
1st col. Pricing
Any images
Any extended description s
Any product speci ficati ons
Columns show the numbers of
manufacturers in the sample who had
various kinds of data in the IDW2
The foregoing graph does not tell the whole story. In most cases, even those
manufacturers who provide images, extended descriptions or product specifications are
– 3 –
thorough or complete in what they do provide. For example, 30 manufacturers in the
sample provide some images, but none appears to provide image links for the full product
line and in most cases it is a minority of items. One of the most compete is Southwire with
images for 2,294 out of 3,231 items, but more typical is GE Lighting with 2,922 of 5,628,
and in the “why bother” department are: Pass & Seymour with 2 out of 11,303; Hoffman
Enclosures with 4 out of 13,749; Hubbell Lighting with 302 out of 17,311, and T&B with
488 out of 62,872. Thirty manufacturers provide extended descriptions, but as with
images, the whole line is not always covered as in the case of Killark, with only 4 items.
Only 10 manufacturers provide product specifications, and except for Southwire, what is
provided is for a very small portion of the total line.
A report similar to but less detailed than the one used above was generated by IDEA at the
request of a distributor and provided to JSA. The data contained in it supports the
conclusion that much of the potential of the IDW database remains unfulfilled due to lack
of data.
The actual data tables cited above are attached as appendix (A) to this report.
Of the IDW data fields that are populated, IDEA’s figures state that 226 companies, or 60%
of the total companies represented are supplied to IDW by Trade Service under the existing
contract. Although many of the companies whose data is provided this way are commonly
considered small and insignificant, they appear to have disproportionate significance to
IDW users. This is because many users are getting data feeds directly from their major
trading partners and are only relying on the IDW to fill in the rest.
This fact of manufacturer-direct sourcing of data of all kinds: basic pricing; net pricing;
descriptions and attributes, is one of the most surprising findings of our study. It is
pervasive. Without exception, all of the distributors we interviewed were receiving direct
data feeds in the form of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, other downloadable formats, or
CDs sent by mail. Of the three major independents interviewed:
􀂃 One uses neither IDW nor Trade Service and gets most of its data direct from
manufacturers;
􀂃 Another blocks out the IDEA database from filling in any fields involving its ten
primary trading partners and sources all data for them directly from the vendors
while using both IDEA and Trade Service to fill in the rest (in fact, the data chief at
that operation said he is using IDEA less and less);
􀂃 A third uses IDEA and Trade service to fill in what they can, but relies on the
manufacturers to fill in the many vacant fields for important vendors as well as net
pricing.
The Net Pricing issue
Regardless of any other data, the most persistent gap in the basic data available to
distributors through IDW (as opposed to extended or attributed data) is in-to-stock net
pricing. This is a significant issue, but not a universal one, because not all distributors use
net pricing; some prefer other formats. Nevertheless, enough distributors’ systems are
keyed to net into stock pricing that the issue must be addressed if IDEA is to fulfill its
promise.
– 4 –
According to Tom Brown of Activant –the contractor who actually handles essentially all of
the technical functions and operations of the IDW, as of March 29th, 2007 the following
manufacturers were providing in-to-stock net pricing data:
1. Leviton Manufacturing Company Inc
2. Ilsco
3. Lutron Electronics Company
4. Crouse-Hinds Div. of Cooper
5. Schneider Electric
6. Pass & Seymour/Legrand
Brown also reported that Hubbell is currently testing some of their brands.1
There has been a presumption among many distributors that the lack of in-to-stock data
was due to lack or interest or effort on the part of the manufacturers. This may be true in
some cases. A glance at the data availability analysis on page two reveals that some
manufacturers are providing even the most basic data irregularly, if at all. However, it is a
mistake to lay blame on manufacturers for the lack of in-to-stock data. In reality, a
technical issue at the IDW itself is the most serious impediment. The IDW is not currently
programmed to accept, extract, and make available net pricing data in the 845 format that
many manufacturers use. Therefore, the data cannot be provided automatically. It is a
manual process.
This issue was discussed in an April 12th conference call involving a number of
manufacturers, representatives of Van Meter, WESCO, Dakota, and Rexel along with some
number of IDEA representatives including Mike Rioux. In that call, the Square D
representative said that her company had planned and programmed around the traditional
845 format and that IDEA’s current inability to process 845s created a material hardship
for them in their efforts to support the IDW. Specifically asked by JSA about the nature of
the hardships, she replied that the current manual process required them to devote about
80 actual person hours of programming time each month to the extraction and
reformatting of data. She said that this prevented them from updating price information
more often than once a month, and that the budget and priorities process they use
sometimes prevented even a monthly update. She said that other manufacturers are facing
similar problems. Others on the call, including the Siemens representative, voiced
agreement.
The resolution of this problem is beyond the scope of JSA’s assignment. However, it was
apparent from various communications after the conference call that IDEA and many of
the manufacturers are not in harmony as to how to proceed. In its own summary of the
conference call, IDEA states that “Since the new flat file standard contains a lot of data
fields that may not be populated as well as potential limitations of some distributor
business systems, especially legacy system users, a condensed version of the flat file
standard was created by IDEA” (see full text in appendix(B)).
________________________
1 Schneider/Square D has said that it is considering ceasing to supply net pricing data until the
process is automated, and there are reports that others are sympathetic to their views.
– 5 –
This IDEA-created flat file (sometimes called the short-form 845) seems to be part of the
problem as it does not match the draft standards to which the manufacturers were planning
and programming, and potentially excludes certain data. IDEA is now asking distributors
which they prefer, which begs the question of the draft standards, and the sunk investment
by the manufacturers. Beyond manufacturers, several 3rd party business systems have been
programmed to the full 845, including : Array; Profit 21; Infor; and Eclipse. At date of
writing, it is not clear how a resolution of these conflicts will be achieved, and therefore,
how long it will be before it is technically practical to deliver net pricing data through the
IDW.
TSC proprietary data and formats
Trade Service’s proprietary formats were mentioned frequently by distributors in our
discussions. It is a complex issue, made the more so by IDEA’s commitment to the concept
that each manufacturer owns the IDW data that pertains to it. As seen in the analysis
above, part of the problem is that manufacturers are not supplying some kinds of useful
information such as column pricing. However, TSC owns or asserts ownership over
certain formats on which some distributor business systems rely. Note that some
manufacturers dislike some of this information for various reasons. Here is a summary:
PFMS (Price File Maintenance Service): is 23 fields of transactional data relied on by such
business systems as Shims and Array.
Generic Product Data: Thirteen product groups that are assigned a UPC, price, description,
and commodity code by TSC. The IDW relies on 10,000 sku’s of such data, but according
to IDEA, IDEA is working with NEMA to replace the TSC data
Commodity Codes: Proprietary 5-digit product codes relied on by many distributors
Product Descriptions: These are 35-character descriptions that TSC asserts are
proprietary. IDEA presently has the use on a very restricted basis.
Zones: TSC asserts that their zone pricing and identifiers are proprietary
IDW user pricing
In response to questions by JSA, IDEA provided the following IDW price sheet and
explanation:
Annual Sales Core Extended Enriched Catalogue
Under $10mm $100 200 400 500
$10mm $20mm$40mm $75mm $100mm $250mm $1B or greater $NA 1,000 3,000 3,500
IDEA states that this pricing applies only to NAED members, and that non-NAEDmembers
pay $100 per month more at each level. IDEA further states that it does not use
promotional pricing with the IDW, but only with IDEA one-time membership fees.
– 6 –
IDW Status Summary and Conclusions
Although it is very far from fulfilling its mission of being a price and product data
repository for the entire industry, the IDW2 has made progress over time in several areas.
Today, it offers the following benefits to subscribers:
􀂃 Generally good access and connectivity;
􀂃 Information more timely than TSC in many cases (but not all);
􀂃 Accuracy of manufacturer-sourced information is reportedly higher than TSC;
􀂃 Possibility of near–term availability of net pricing data;
􀂃 May still have potential to become a standardized, single-location source of current
data;
􀂃 A proven, smoothly functioning technical operation run by Activant, a known and
reliable contractor;
􀂃 Favorable pricing.
These benefits should not be taken for granted. They are the end results of much effort.
For example, it should be recalled that the initial IDW was very difficult and expensive to
access. Nevertheless, as it stands today, IDW2 faces a number of significant challenges:
􀂃 Very limited market penetration (only 29.7% of NAED members and less than 10%
of all electrical distributors are active);
􀂃 Significant gaps in available data including basic data;
􀂃 No feasible plan to source missing data;
􀂃 Technical challenges to providing net pricing via automated, electronic means;
􀂃 User friendliness issues (for example, inability to print the entire Product Details
report – only page one)
􀂃 Reliance on third-party data sourcing and formats (TSC).
Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the IDW2 as it is presently
organized and operated is not capable on its own, of providing acceptable service levels to
its customers. If the present arrangement with TSC is not extended, IDW2’s business
model must change. This change could involve the proposed joint venture with TSC, or
IDEA could opt for another approach. In any event, the status quo cannot be maintained.
– 7 –
The Proposed IDEA/Trade Service Joint Venture
We were also asked to review and assess the proposed Joint Venture between Trade Service
and IDEA, and to advise the NAED Board as to its risks and benefits both to IDEA and to
NAED. In order to do this, we:
1. Carefully examined the February 9th, 2007 Executive Summary of the proposed
joint venture;
2. Submitted a number of questions concerning the proposal and reviewed the
answers created by IDEA and BSW
3. Met personally on two occasions with the principals of BSW to discuss aspects of
the proposal, and had additional communications with them by phone;
4. Carefully reviewed a number of outlines and spreadsheet pro-formas created by
BSW to support the proposal;
5. Had personal and telephone discussion with Todd Kumm and Mike Rioux and a
number of other parties concerning aspects of the proposal;
6. Carefully reviewed IDEA financial statements and reports for the prior two years;
7. Reviewed other documents.
Potential benefits of the proposed Joint Venture
A) Financial
The largest potential benefit to either IDEA or NAED of the proposed Joint Venture is the
possibility of financial stability and a measure of security for IDEA. At present, IDEA is
surviving solely on the profits generated by the highly successful IDX2. IDEA’s other
programs and projects, including the IDW, lose money (for the most part slightly more than
IDW) and have limited revenues. The following summary is taken from IDEA’s un-audited
draft 2006 year-end financial statement, and is subject to change:
Item Revenue Reported Profit or Loss
Sales 251,073.99 -149,352.72
IDW 745,337.20 -76,396.20
DAC 169,500.00 26,350.74
IDX2 3,995,181.92 1,682,625.70
IRD 259,769.41 -309,421.73
eCredit 3,468.00 3,261.40
Standards 0.00 -80,737.99
Forum 133,732.00 -27,490.63
Other(Fin-Int-Misc) 76,746.26 -353,404.87
According to these draft financial statements, in 2006, IDEA as a whole had revenues of
~$5.6mm and net profit of ~$700k. It had a strong balance sheet, with current assets
(principally cash and a/r) in excess of ~$3mm; as compared to total liabilities of slightly
less than $1.5mm.
This is certainly a strong financial position, and yet, as can be seen in the summary above,
it depends entirely on the IDX2. According to information obtained by JSA from IDX2
users, it is still a very competitive service. Doubtless, though, the IDX2 has a lifecycle like
– 8 –
most products and will in time become less profitable. No one can predict when that will
happen.
In the mean time, however, IDEA must continue to develop and service the IDW. At 2006
revenue levels, and with the present arrangement with Trade Service, the IDW generated
negative cash flow. Over the last three years, two consulting firms, CMA Group, and BSW,
have estimated that the incremental costs of replacing the information currently provided
by TSC to the IDW, together with the costs of the highly competitive marketing battle that
would ensue if IDW was to hope to take significant market share from TSC could run well
into the millions of dollars. The higher of those estimates was BSW’s, which relied on
operating estimates that appear to have limited support. JSA does not have an opinion as
to the reliability of either set of estimates. However, it is clear that any change in the
IDEA/TSC relationship other than the proposed joint venture would involve material
additional costs. Of course, in the face of entrenched, competent and determined
competition, even with expenditures of this magnitude, the outcome would be uncertain.
On the other hand, if a fair and reasonable joint venture could be structured, there would
be no incremental costs to replace TSC data, marketing could possibly be simplified, and in
a less competitive environment, there could be more pricing latitude. In such a scenario,
IDEA’s prospects for long-term survival and growth could be enhanced.
The pro-forma JV income statements developed by BSW (apparently on assumptions
provided by IDEA), project substantial annual growth rates, resulting in positive cash flow
and profit growth over time. JSA is skeptical of these assumptions. There is disagreement
among NAED and other data sources as to the size of the electrical distributor universe.
However, the market for IDW2 data shows signs of being nearly fully served. Therefore,
while we believe that there is a financial case to be made for a joint venture with TSC, that
case rests primarily on costs saved or avoided, rather than on growth and profits.
B) Enhanced technical ability to complete the IDW mission
The task facing the IDW today is monumental. The most visible immediate need – to
overcome IDW’s largely self-imposed handicaps in providing net pricing is deceptively
simple. Once agreement is reached within the industry, net pricing can probably be
delivered with between a few weeks and a few months of programming and testing time.
The hardest part of that is likely to be the achievement within the industry. Nonetheless,
net pricing appears to be quite feasible.
Beyond net pricing, though are the many empty columns shown in the analysis above. The
IDW database is simply not well populated. While it is not true that the manufacturers are
primarily at fault in the net pricing controversy, it is certainly true that they are at fault in
failing to provide many other kinds of data to the IDW. With some manufacturers,
especially very large enterprises, the solution is likely more a matter of time than anything
else. It has turned out to require far more internal effort than anyone estimated to create
and provide pricing data. With a continued focus over time, some of these organizations
may come fully on line.
For whatever reason, however, others will not. They present a real challenge. It is hard to
imagine a scenario in which IDEA would have the influence to cause manufacturers to take
interest if they don’t choose to be persuaded. Even with the strong backing of NEMA and
– 9 –
the significant efforts of a manufacturing leader of the status of Hubbell CEO Tim Powers,
working in concert with leading distributors, the drive to populate the IDW has been
disappointing. Yet, for the IDW to fulfill its promise, it must be able to provide at a fairly
complete set of at least basic data.
Trade Service has the ability to source data independently. In conjunction with a
mechanism under discussion whereby manufacturers could examine the data and opt to
replace it if they chose, far more data could be made available than would otherwise be
possible.
One could argue that IDEA could develop an alternative mechanism for sourcing the data
that TSC could provide in the future. Indeed, that might be possible and should be
explored. However, it would be an expensive start-up effort with uncertain prospects in
the face of intense competition.
Beyond TSC’s ability to source data are its proprietary data and formats, some of which
would become available to the joint venture. Although these may become obsolete over
time, many distributors still rely on them. The ability to use them would simplify the
longer term transition to newer, unified formats.
C) Reduced channel confusion
Reduced channel confusion and presenting “one face,” to the market are listed as
important benefits in the promotional material for the JV. In JSA’s opinion, they are indeed
benefits, but more to the JV itself than to the market. The “market” of distributors and
manufacturers is well aware of the competing suppliers of product and pricing data (which
also includes Material Express). Such confusion as exists appears to mostly be about what
data is actually available, and how to cope with database deficiencies. The real benefits of
presenting a single face are mostly in the marketing cost reduction to the JV partners. That
could be significant.
Potential risks of the proposed Joint Venture
A) Lack of a ready-to-execute alternative plan
One of IDEA’s greatest weaknesses in these negotiations is the lack of a viable “Plan B” that
is ready to go if the proposed JV does not come to pass, and if TSC refuse to renew the
present data-sharing contract. Some work has been done. It is reflected in a spreadsheet
provided to JSA by BSW, and in some references in one version of the presentation to be
made to the NAED Board. However, it does not appear that Activant or other potential
partners have been asked to respond with proposals or that a detailed ready-to-implement
operating plan exists. In answer to questions by JSA, BSW stated that they had no support
for the figures in their pro-formas, but had relied entirely on IDEA. When asked about
“Plan B,” Mike Rioux referred to discussions with Activant about possible other markets
to penetrate. He said nothing about any plans to assure service continuity with the IDW2,
and continue its growth and development. From this, JSA has concluded that such
planning as has been done has been rather general and high level and is not execution
ready, or even truly pro-forma ready.
– 10 –
To be sure, JSA’s conclusion may be wrong. Such plans may indeed exist. It is possible that
BSW and IDEA misunderstood the thrust of JSA’s questions, or that JSA misunderstood the
answers. If they do exist, and if they are sufficiently developed to allow immediate
execution upon the possible failure of JV negotiations, IDEA should share them and all
their underlying detail with the NAED Board. Whichever the case, NAED cannot make
prudent judgments concerning the proposal, and IDEA is potentially handicapped in
negotiations, until these plans are fully developed, understood, accepted, and ready to go.
B) Impractical governance and dilution of NAED influence
NAED is presently one of two owners of IDEA and therefore, the IDW2. As such, it can in
theory exert considerable influence over IDW2 policy, and safeguard the interests of NAED
members. The first proposed governance scheme for the JV would have involved layering
of boards on boards. This was impractical. It would also have would have reduced
NAED’s direct influence. JSA and NAED are told that the parties are open to other
approaches. However, no agreement has been reached and disagreements exist.
Another governance/management-related issue is the matter of who would run things in the
JV. The proposal calls for “IDEA” to do it. Mike Rioux reportedly wants to hire an
operating person to do it, while he himself would be promoted to CEO and focus on
executive matters (he is now COO, with a member of the Board serving as CEO).
Reportedly, TSC is not completely in harmony with this concept.
C) Proposed governance structure would reduce IDW2 accountability to distributors
As a subset of the point above, Ipso facto control of the IDW would rest with TSC. The
consequences if NAED’s influence is substantially diminished, could be that decisions of all
kinds, from pricing to formats, will be driven by TSC, to suit TSC’s interests in a near
monopolistic situation. Distributors would have little influence, if any at all.
D) Lack of a fair and unique benefit to NAED members
In a real sense, NAED has been IDEA’s lifeline for several years. It has made a material
financial investment, to say nothing of staff and volunteer time that is likely in the
thousands of hours. It is an owner. At present, the sole exclusive benefit enjoyed by
NAED members is a $100 per month IDW2 price advantage over non-members. There is
nothing in the current proposal that would guarantee continuation of this benefit or any
other. To put this into perspective, TSC is a corporation with private owners who would
personally enjoy the benefits of a joint venture. The question of how benefits will flow to
the members of co-owner NAED is unresolved and uncertain.
E) Fair allocation of costs and benefits is unresolved
The present proposal as outlined in the Executive Summary dated February 9, 2007,
divides JV revenues on the basis of the revenues contributed by the parties. This works out
to an 85% – 15% split in favor of TSC. Once the amount of the initial revenue
contribution is exceeded in a give year, incremental revenues would be divided 50/50.
– 11 –
There is a provision for the JV’s own operating expenses. While this is simple on its face,
many details are unresolved. For example, the relative profitability of the “revenues”
contributed is uncertain, and there is no clear mechanism for adjustment of the allocation
formula due to changes in costs or revenues.
F) Functions and obligations of the parties not fully determined
The parties propose to contract with the JV to provide the services that will make the JV
run. Initially, this was referred to as a “perpetual services contract.” Although the name
may have changed, such a service contract is obviously of the essence of the JV. It must be
clear who will do what, under what conditions and at what cost. The Executive Summary
of February 9, 2007, diagrams the parties responsibilities in a general way. However, BSW
advised JSA that the operating details remain to be worked out. It is unclear how either
side can adequately assess the cost/benefit of the transaction until these details are known.
G) Obligations and processes for windup or withdrawal of a partner are not adequate
Even the best conceived partnerships can fail. Technologies change. A partner may find
that the relationship is no longer profitable, or that it is detrimental in other ways. A
strategic decision may be made by one of the parties to abandon that particular business
line or approach. Financial difficulties or bankruptcy cannot be ruled out.
Beyond matters of business fit and profitability, a partner might have a strategic reason to
cause the wind up of a partnership. For example, a partner might judge that by
terminating, it would place its co-venturer into an untenable situation that would allow the
terminating partner to take the entire business on a favorable basis.
It is impossible to foresee or predict all the various scenarios that might cause a wind-up of
the proposed JV, or the withdrawal of a partner. The probabilities cannot even be assessed.
Yet prudence and simple common sense dictate that the details and circumstances of a
withdrawal or windup be carefully spelled out. Unfortunately, the proposals to-date have
been superficial and inadequate. In response to JSA’s written questions, IDEA working
with BSW suggested the points made in italics below:
1. According to IDEA/BSW, “There is no restriction on either party deciding it wants to
get out. The only rules are on the pricing of the shares.”
2. If a partner wished to end the partnership, IDEA and BSW suggest that it could use
the put/call method whereby one partner proposes the price and the other determines
which side of the deal it wishes to be on (in other words, one names a price and the
other gets to decide whether to buy or sell at that price). The problem with this is
that absent a very clear contract that governs the timeframe of withdrawal and
assures the continuation of critical services during an adequate transition period, it
could be that one of the partners could find itself helpless to do anything other than
sell, or risk a service interruption that would be very costly for the entire industry.
3. If a partner just ceased to participate, the current thinking is that the other partner
would pick up the slack and that the division of revenue would be redone to take the
difference into account. As with the point above, though, it is naive to think that
– 12 –
this would work in the absence of strict contractual terms governing transitions and
assuring service continuity. Bankruptcy counsel should be consulted to be sure that
such terms would survive in the bankruptcy courts.
4. A withdrawing partner would face non-competition and confidentiality restrictions
that would phase in over time. Initially (for a yet-undetermined period of time)
there would be no restrictions at all. IDEA/BSW state that, “The reality is that once
TSC is out of the market for six to nine months, they would be just about starting
from scratch. This is one of the reasons for the structure of the deal. IDEA would be
buying them out of the market.” There may certainly be some truth to that.
However, it is a rather broad assumption. Prudence would again dictate very clear
contractual provisions protective of both partners’ interests.
As an aside, the question is begged that, if the present proposal is a de facto buyout
of TSC, why does TSC get half of the seats on the Board, and a perpetual 50% split
of incremental revenue?
The Proposed Joint Venture Summary and Conclusions
At the conceptual level, a reasonable business case can be made for the proposed JV.
However, this is a complex transaction. As with all such, “the Devil is in the details.” In
this particular case, the details have simply not been adequately considered and worked out
for prudent people to form conclusions and make decisions about the proposal.
The absence of a clear, ready-to-go alternative weakens IDEA’s negotiating position, while
making NAED’s decision more difficult. The JV is a good or bad deal, compared to what,
exactly? What happens if the deal falls through? Is it a situation of “JV or bust?” Was
IDEA on a fast track to extinction before TSC approached it with this proposal? If not,
what was its plan?
While it does seem both prudent and desirable for IDEA to continue in good faith
discussions with TSC, it is also very clear that any request for approval of the proposal
would be very premature. Far more must be known. There are very material unaddressed
or inadequately addressed risks and uncertainties. All of the points raised in the analysis
above must be first covered in a satisfactory manner.
Appendix A

Appendix B
April 13, 2007
Subj: IDW2 User Group Summary and Action Item Report re: Net Price into Stock Data via IDW2
An IDW2 User Group conference call session was conducted on April 12 to address the delivery
of Net Price data via the IDW2. Participants on the call included:
Attendees
Mike, Dave and Marcy from IDEA
Bethany Sullivan from NAED
Joe Salimando from NAED
Tom Brown from Activant
Tracy Satcho from EATON
Liz Norman from SIEMENS
Ann Jaehn from T& B
Steve Blakley from T&B
Ann Adams from SQD
Bernie W from PANDUIT
Joe Wallace from Van Meter
James Tinker from Rexel
Todd Kumm from Dakota Supply
Tom Schneider from WESCO
Call participants raised concerns that the IDW2 is not fully developed to deliver Net Price data to
distributors. Considering the growing demand by distributors for Net Price data via the IDW2 and
the ability by some manufacturers to transmit the EDI 845 to the IDW2, IDEA was asked to
explain what has being done to finish the IDW2 Net Price functionality.
There are two components necessary to enable the receipt (inbound from manufacturer) and
delivery (outbound to distributor) of Net Price data via the IDW2. The capability to accept the EDI
845 for Net Price data (inbound) has been completed. Internal IDW2 system tests have been
completed but a BETA test with manufacturer(s) remains an outstanding action item.
Schneider Electric/Square D (Ann Adams) and Thomas & Betts (Ann Jaehn) agreed to work with
Activant Solutions (Tom Brown) and submit sample files. It was recommended that the sample
files be submitted with dummy pricing.
To ensure the best IDW2/Internet performance and avoid overloading distributor business
systems with very large files and redundant information, IDEA recommended that distributor
branches only extract Net Price into Stock files.
To date little feedback has been obtained from IDW2 distributor customers whether their business
system can accept Net Price data from the IDW2 in the new standard flat file format. Since the
new flat file standard contains a lot of data fields that may not be populated as well as potential
limitations of some distributor business systems, especially legacy system users, a condensed
version of the flat file standard was created by IDEA.
To be certain that the IDW2 Net price outbound solution meets the needs of distributors; IDEA
indicated that they would issue a questionnaire to distributor customers that requested that Net
Price data be provided via the IDW2. The questionnaire will be sent on April 16 with an April 27
response. A copy of the questionnaire will also be provided to the call participants. Upon receipt
of the responses a summary will be prepared and follow on action to complete the IDW2
outbound function will be identified.

To sign up to see these documents in their original format, click on the link (you may have to copy paste this into your browser) and sign up:
http://groups.google.com/group/naed-problems
or you are welcome to send a email to:
naed-problems@googlegroups.com

Feel free to post other documents that pertain to the IDEA/TSC proposed joint venture.
You’ll need to sign up and create an account to pull the documents off the site.
http://groups.google.com/group/naed-problems?hl=en

It is pretty plain that Joe Sullivan and his sidekick don’t understand data based on the report they submitted to NAED corporate.
The reasons that Joe Sullivan and his group give, show that they don’t understand that a JV would have exposed all the current TSC distributors to IDEA as they worked through industry problems. The net result would have been that both TSC and IDEA would have created a win-win for the industry as a whole.
The report that Joe Sullivan generated was probably dictated by a desire to generate income over a longer period of time, rather than recommending what is really good for the industry. The report really lacks substance and facts.
Most certainly the responce written by IDEA points out the numerous faults to this report.
You can see the actual documents at:
http://groups.google.com/group/naed-problems?hl=en
Do yourslef a favor and take a look at the documents.
The hatchet job (in TED mag) that Tom Naber and a few distributors have engineered, will cause IDEA to become a political pawn in the industry.
Strategy is obviously not the strong suit of Joe Sullivan or Tom Naber.
D.Henry

Well it’s about time to repond to this madness that Joe S and Tom N have brought on the electrical channel:
1
May 3, 2007
Subj: Comments/responses to JSA Report for the NAED BOD
Overall the JSA report is fraught with misinformation and makes conclusions and assumptions
based on incomplete analysis and investigation of the facts. This report was not shared with
IDEA, Brown Smith and Wallace or any of the members of the industry team to ensure that the
statements made by JSA were valid and correct. The report makes insinuations about the
performance of the team and BSW as to the incompleteness of the pro-forma, model and
operational documents that have been prepared and already approved by the IDEA Board and
NEMA BOG. The task given to the IDEA, TSC team along with the support of Brown Smith and
Wallace consulting staff was to deliver a model not a contract that would meet the needs of the
industry and Trade Service alike. We delivered on our assignment and are prepared to go to the
final negotiating phase pending the outcome of the NAED BOD meeting.
The following provides specific responses to the JSA report.
1. Status of IDW2
1) IDEA/IDW2 has about 20% market share of total customers that use an
electronic data base service or content service.
2) We have 134 distributors downloading daily, weekly or monthly from the IDW2.
Every distributor has a different process and model for how they use information.
Therefore to make a statement that only 27.5% of the 134 IDW2 users are doing
so at a level to permit data sync is a very subjective and unfounded statement.
He was not given access to IDW2 extraction reports.
3) IDW2 data is based the PDD standard which specifies whether the information is
Required (R), Required Conditional (RC) or Optional. Each manufacturer
business process is different and as long as they deliver the R and RC data per
the standard then they meet the needs of their trading partners. For example,
wire manufacturers only provide List price because of the dynamics of how their
market operates. By JSA’s definition/statement a wire manufacturer that does not
supply cost or suggested resale prices has incomplete data. Some
manufacturers use price group codes and multipliers while others don’t so it is
JSA’s lack of understanding of how the PDD and IDW2 is designed that is the
issue. The DAC and validation rules are in place to ensure compliance with the
PDD.
4) Technical problems at IDW2 prevent transmission of Net into Stock. This is not
true. Today manufacturers can use a flat file equivalent of an EDI 845 document
to deliver nets to their trading partners. We already have 7 suppliers doing it
daily. To facilitate the delivery of Nets into Stock for suppliers that send EDI 845
(which is a price quote document) to their trading partners we directed Activant to
program that function. In order to extract Net data from the 845, Activant had to
write a map/program to enable the feature. That was completed in November
2006. Despite our efforts, between Nov 2006 and April 200 there was no
manufacturer that sent test 845 data as the focus shifted to output format for
distributors. Last week 845 test data was sent to the IDW2 by 3 suppliers
resulting in issues because of the way the 845 file was formatted by the
suppliers, all of which were different. As it turned out a revision to the 845
standard and an associated best practice document will have to be created to
ensure some consistent adherence to the standard by suppliers.
5) There are no capacity problems with IDW2 and never will be and is unfounded.
We had a problem 2 years in IDW1 but that problem was remedied with IDW2.
6) IDW2 only accepts 341,000 SKUs of data from TSC, 10,000 of which are
commodity data. An analysis of the remaining 331,000 KUS conducted by IDEA
indicates a lot of out of date and old data as well as data with invalid UPC codes.
2
The suppliers of the 331,000 SKUS represent many suppliers that are no longer
in business, were acquired or do not have the capability to deliver the information
on their own. Every valid manufacturer that has data delivered to us by TSC has
been contacted by IDEA for their data. We are not dependent on TSC for data.
To state that “the inescapable conclusion is that the IDW2 as it is presently organized
and operated is not capable on its own of providing acceptable service levels” is totally
false and misleading to anyone that reads the report.
2. Proposed IDEA/TSC JV
1) The details have been carefully considered with the exception of the legal terms
and conditions.
2) Because of the dynamics of the channel and how data content is managed, the
governance is intended to be responsive and flexible for the business. It
represents a partnership between the 2 leading content providers with IDEA as
the management lead and face to the customer. If anything IDEA and IDW2 will
be more accountable because of the new responsibility we have with Trade
Service and all the customers.
3) While the financial model has been revised the division of revenues and profits
has been agreed to and is clearly spelled out in the model and financial
projections documents.
4) Benefits to NAED and NEMA have been documented in the summary report,
PPT slides and briefings to IDEA and NEMA Boards and will be as well at the
NAED BOD.
5) All the roles and responsibilities have been spelled out in the operational
documents. The approval to move forward by the NAED BOD then would trigger
a set of joint IDEA TSC meetings whereby we can be very specific as to the work
flow processes and interactions and people assigned to each task. Because of
the confidentiality of the related information that would be needed for this phase
both parties agreed that the process and detail interactions could not be pursued
until we had approval from all stakeholders.
6) The parties have been working the proposed agreement since November 2005.
The schedule that we agreed to follows:
• Approve model
IDEA BOD – December 2006
NEMA BOG – March 2006
TSC BOD – April 2006
NAED BOD – May 2006
• Complete negotiations and present contract for approval
Negotiations/T&C’s – May-June 2007
IDEA BOD – Late June 2007
NEMA BOG – July 12 2007
• NAED BOD – September 2007
Announcement September 2007
• SYNC operations September – Dec 2007
• Launch JV operations – Jan 2008
IDEA has no clear cut executable alternative plan – This is not true. Without revealing
the proposed JV, IDEA and Activant developed a strategic plan to grow the IDW2,
expand the manufacturer database, and add new features and capabilities. This plan
has not been shared with JSA. IDEA does have 3 year financial projections for the
IDW2. IDEA has a plan B which will fleshed out with the IDEA BOD in the event that
the JV is not approved.
JSA Recommendations
3
1) The conditions and parameters to which the negotiators must adhere:
a. Governance – we spelled these out in the operational summary report
b. We recommended a 3rd party but subsequently replaced that with an
arbitration clause.
c. Articles and Bylaws of LLC will be established by legal counsel including
“powers” of officers etc after the approval to go to the contract phase is
given.
d. The bylaws and articles will be similar to that established for IDEA as a C
corporation which empowers the Chairman and BOD to convene
meetings.
2) An alternative plan could be made available within 30-45 days but it would need
to be reviewed and approved by the IDEA BOD first. The no-JV model that we
prepared and BSW reviewed with JSA is also an alternative plan. JSA has a
copy of that plan. If a detailed operational plan is required as an alternative over
the next 30 days while we are also negotiating with TSC that will be very hard to
do.
3) Clarification and definition of the high priority elements of the JV plan that is
recommended would need to be identified by NAED in order for the team to
address those matters.
4) The team has not been trying to meet arbitrary deadlines but have established a
milestone schedule to ensure that we complete the actions in a reasonable and
timely manner that is acceptable to both parties.
3. Suggested Conditions and Parameters for IDEA negotiators
1) Governance – addressed already above
2) Division of revenues/profits – also addressed above. In addition the model and
financial documents outlining the division of revenues and profits were briefed to
JSA by Brown Smith and Wallace on April 3. Copies of the model and financials
were provided to JSA.
3) Unique benefits to NAED members – the current price break for IDW2 data will
remain in effect unless otherwise directed by the JV BOD. NAED members that
purchase the TSC JV products will be charged the TSC rates because of the way
the financial model/revenue distribution is structured. The biggest benefit to
NAED and NEMA will be in the redistribution of IDEA’s portion of JV profits to
NAED and NEMA. In turn the owners can use that revenue to issue rebates or
lower dues etc as they see fit. This has been clearly spelled out in the 11 page
summary document.
4) The operational details have been spelled out in the summary report. The proforma
was developed by Brown Smith and Wallace. Because of the
confidentiality and nature of each partners business and processes specific JV
operating procedures will be completed after the agreement to go forward is
approved.
5) Again because of the nature of each company’s business the obligations and
performance parameters will be addressed in the next phase of discussion after
the model is approved by NAED.
6) The default, termination, put call, and withdrawal components will be included in
the next phase when both parties engage legal counsel in the process.
Current Status of the IDW2
1. Page 2 indicates that for data synchronization to work effectively downloads must occur
as changes are made. The report insinuates that they must occur when changes are
made, which could be more than once a day. IDEA’s IDW2 training program
recommends daily access but the decision on how often to download data is with the
user not IDEA. Without a data match comparison between every supplier and distributor
one can not postulate whether a daily or weekly download is needed to ensure data
4
synchronization. The IDW2 has a scheduler that allows the user to set that up the way
the user desires. It should be noted that TSC data is sent out only on a weekly basis. The
statement made by JSA is not relevant to the JV.
2. Data availability in the IDW – there is no indication of when the large independent
distributor accessed IDW2 data. In addition some of the facts relevant to the suppliers
listed are incorrect. For example there was reference to only 302 product images out of
17,311 for Hubbell Lighting. Hubbell Lighting does not have that many SKUS.
If a through analysis was completed JSA would know that many manufacturers have
limited enriched data and product images in their data base that can be exported to
IDW2. Further all of the TSC catalog data and images were created by Trade and not
provided by suppliers. IDEA’s model does not allow creation of data.
If a thorough analysis was completed JSA would also know that 90% of all electrical
suppliers provide direct data feeds and is the primary “competitor” on data content to both
TSC and IDEA alike, making it even more important that the JV be formed.
3. Net Price – Net Price data function was addressed in the early portion of the document.
But it is worth pointing out that the functionality for EDI 845 to IDW2 is being
programmed. More importantly the large majority of suppliers (over 90%) do not have the
capability to automate and send this data to the IDW2. Therefore it is not the inability of
the IDW2 but the lack of capability of the suppliers to meet the user demand.
4. TSC Proprietary data and formats – the information in the JSA report was provided by
IDEA and there are no issues. The JV will eliminate the proprietary nature of the TSC
formats.
Proposed IDEA/TSC JV
1. Financial the report insinuates IDEA is not financially stable and relies solely on IDX2 for
its revenue stream. JSA took no time to discuss financials with IDEA or how our
expenses are allocated by product line. The report also insinuates that the IDX2 will
become less profitable in time. This is strictly a qualitative statement. JSA is not aware of
our programs and efforts to add new IDX2 features and lower expenses. No reference
was made to the first quarter 2007 financials showing positive cash flow and profit for
IDW2 and IRD. Our financial projections are very conservative for all our products and
the budget is approved by our Board – JSA indicated that they are skeptical of these
numbers and assumptions.
2. Enhanced technical ability to complete the IDW mission – the task facing IDW is not
monumental. Solid gains are being made every day. The IDW2 is 100% reliable and is
easy to use by suppliers and users alike. The key to success in any data warehouse
model is getting the supplier community to participate and contribute information and
meet the needs of their trading partners. NAED and NEMA would be a great benefit to
the IDW if they did more to drive supplier data to the IDW2.
3. Reduced channel confusion – Material Express (ME) is considered a minor player and
ME is trying to exit the market. ME even contacted IDEA to assess our interest in
acquiring their business.
Potential Risks
1. Lack of an alternative plan – this was already addressed above.
2. Impractical Governance and dilution of NAED influence – this is a business venture and
must be operated accordingly. Both NEMA and NAED have roles on the JV Board as
well as the IDEA BOD. The JV would have a COO that would report to the IDEA
President. TSC does not disagree with this approach.
5
3. Accountability – Ipso fact control of IDW would rest with IDW? There is absolutely nothing
documented in the JSA report to support that conclusion.
4. Benefit to NAED Members – the IDEA TSC has not addressed future product pricing. The
intent is to keep the price models intact near term including the NAED rate.
5. Fair Allocation of costs and benefits – the model is clear and explicit as to how his will be
managed.
6. Function and obligations not fully determined – the operational components and
responsibilities are outlined. The specific business process and staff assignments will be
detailed in a planning session that will be held between both partners after the model is
approved.
7. Obligations and Process for windup or withdrawal of a partner – By advise of legal
counsel these terms and conditions will be developed after the model is approved.
Closing points from IDEA
1. JSA outlines all of the financial benefits and reasons for doing the deal but imposes
enough commentary on how NAED needs to impose conditions and create there own
benefits separate from NEMA or TSC, make it appear that JSA is opposed to the JV
without ever saying so. A carefully crafted report for that purpose.
2. Ignoring all of the criticism that JSA levels at the IDEA and at BSW (page 9
commentaries), JSA ignores all the work we have done in April to advance the deal and
address the weakness and risks that he lists on page 9-12.
3. JSA’s assessment contradicts what we have heard about how strong IDEA is and how
valuable the data is. This undermines arguments about the value of IDEA from the
manufacturers’ perspective.
4. The NAED BOD needs to know that we have already done the no-JV analysis.
5. Imposing conditions that results in the termination of negotiations would be counterproductive.
6. Jim LaGrossa is now fighting resistance on his own board to continue to extend the
negotiations of this deal. If NAED imposes the suggested conditions as a prerequisite to
negotiating the terms and conditions the deal will die.
7. We have ample time to prepare an alternative plan of action if the JV dies. Why JSA is
recommending doing it now only jeopardizes the ability to consummate the JV deal.

Having read the documents that are posted so far, it is amazing that Business owners (both distributors and manufacturers) have turned over Money Making decisions to Trade Association weanies that have abosolutely no knowledge of their respective industries and how each makes money.
These trade association guys have a hard time figuring out which hotel to hold meetings at. It appears that association hired personnel got together an made a decision that will wipe out all progress that has been made to date with regards to data synchronization. This decision for NAED to take over and try to run IDEA will be a disaster.
The propganda that is being pumped out through TED magazine and some of their writers is designed to blow smoke over the real issues at hand.

Distributors and manufacturers should take back the power they have given to the associations.
Jim Johnston

All of the above is wonderful but there is no one offering a solution as to how to put the replacing of Rioux on hold and get the IDEA, NAED, and NEMA BODs to live up to the provision of the IDEA Charter. I’m pretty confidant in saying that Rioux was fired illegally and it is the responsibility of the IDEA BOD to stop it and discipline the people who did it, Nabors and Gaddis.
There also seems to be a lot of talk about about net into stock cost information and flat files. Both of those capabilities were PURPOSELY PROHIBITED by the original conceivers of IDEA. They anticipated that they were counterproductive and would hopelessly complicate the ability of manufactures to supply timely and ACCURATE data. The IDEA conceivers provided a much more elegant and simpler way for the net cost data to be communicated to the data user community through the use of Price Group Codes and OFFLINE matrixes sent from data providers to data users via email, fax, carrier pigeon or any number of other methods. I have heard from naysayers that it doesn’t work and complicates the process. Having utilized price group codes with EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY COMPANIES VENDORS (INCLUDING THOSE THAT HAVE WACKY PRICING SCHEMES LIKE LAMP AND WIRING DEVICE MANUFACTURERS) SINCE 1972, I can tell you it works. Contrary to popular opinion, it is far easier than individual net price agreements, does not add one bit of traffic to that already going through the IDW and conveys special net pricing for EVERY item on a vendor’s price sheet without the need to transmit hundreds of thousands of unnecessary data through IDEA. Flat files were also prohibited because we wanted to make sure that users were encouraged to learn EDI so that they would be in a position to deal with their customer’s electronic commerce requests. Using flat files is a counterproductive crutch which will come back in the future and bite those who use them on the ASS.

The illegal firing of Rioux probably won’t be stopped because Nabors and Gaddis cut a deal to derail IDEA from growth so that NAED can hi-jack IDEA and the growth potential.
If you think that any current or future Chair person has the fortitude to remove Nabors you would probably be wrong.
It is my oponion that both have lost their moral compasses. Now Nabors is sending a person into run IDEA (her pictures were passed around several months ago).
Without many realizing it, IDEA has become a political animal and all of this was caused by Nabors wanting more power.
There will probably be a joint press offering extoiling NAED’s corporate virtue of saving IDEA from making progress. When in fact it will be NAED standing in the way of manufacturers and distrubtors working together for the common good.

Price group codes are good. My problem is that I have to convert off TSC coding…for my company it is a major process.
If and when we get to making the switch over to IDW data, I hope IDEA will still be in business.
Jack Hart

The reference in an earlier post that “Price group codes are good. My problem is that I have to convert off TSC coding…for my company it is a major process.”

Is this coding unique to your firm or is it a process that is shared by other distributors? If it is a shared process, the maintenance could be done once by a third party (IDEA, perhaps the software system provider) and distributed to the distributors who need the information.

To the issue of coding that was raised:
“Is this coding unique to your firm or is it a process that is shared by other distributors? If it is a shared process, the maintenance could be done once by a third party (IDEA, perhaps the software system provider) and distributed to the distributors who need the information”.
We are going to have to figure out a way to communicate that is not through NAED or their consultants.
Message to the posting person: If the person that posted the question works for NAED, my company will not interact with you or your firm.
With all the problems that NAED and their propaganda is stirring up, we really don’t want to deal with people that don’t have a clue about what problems a distributor such as our company would have to go through.
If however you work for IDEA or one of the ERP software companies, please post a email address and we’ll get in touch. We use SX for two of our companies and Array for another.
Sorry to have to take precautions this way.
Thank you.

Trade Service has got to be loving all this turmoil…..not only can NAED corporate kill a deal, many of their BOD are now fessing up that
1.they knew nothing about the illegal firing of M.Rioux before hand.
2. That NAED killed a deal that might have caused a joint industry project to actually work.
3. This illegal firing was because Tom couldn’t stand it because IDEA was and is being successful. Wake up and smell the roses.
4. Tom is trying to create another version of what actually happened.
5. Documents are flying around from BOD members who are now embarrassed.
6. I-mark should be intersting this year because of all the bull that Todd, John F. and NAED will deal out…..it is a shame.

TSC is probably sitting out in SD laughing themselves silly.
Way to go NAED!

The word is that it took Rioux and TSC about 18 months to reach an acceptable agreement and NAED (based on what Tom says) about three days to scuttle the agreement and another 4 days to illegally fire Rioux.

TSC is probably thinking to them selves that they will never be able to reach an agreement with a IDEA that would be run by NAED.
TSC should gear up right now and set out to crush a NAED run IDEA.

Our suggestion is that the IDEA BOD wake up and take IDEA private, sell some stock to interested parties (yes even to TSC if they are really intersted in driving cost out of the channel)and get both associations out of this mess that was created by Tom and his hatchet people.
Take politics out of the mix.

By going private, manufacturers and serious minded distributors can make headway with data sync and attributed data. Most manufacturers sell products outside of distribution!
Regards,
Fred Thompson(no relation to the canidate) & Paul Wolf in MN & WI

There seem to be a lot of comments about an illegal firing and heavy handed tactics by NAED’s president with the help of some henchmen and women.

Check this out carefully. Naber has a history of running off any potentially valuable service that NAED can’t control. I have received reports from industry associates where their business has been threatened if they didn’t play ball with Tom the way he wanted.

All the jobs I know he has held were association jobs where he ran the magazine and could bully any competitors in the magazine business and I beleive he got used to this luxury. He held an editor/publisher job in the waste removal industry and then in the electrical contracting industry (Electrical Contractor).

Does anybody care enough to investigate this guy?

Come on, this new report is the second hatchet job he got Joe Sullivan to write. Joe… you ought to be ashamed of yourself and you are giving consultants a really bad image by allowing yourself to be used that way.

That’s not the point though… Somebody needs to call Naber on the carpet after gathering all the facts on him. He’s been out of control for quite some time.

NAED chairpersons only exist for a year. They don’t want trouble on their shift. They won’t take action and don’t have enough time to get the goods on anyone in Naber’s position. Who has the guts to step up and take care of this issue?

Rioux was the wrong guy to get fired.

It is amazing that Naber was able to arrange a small lynching mob and make it look like everybody was consulted on the move when they were not.

That alone ought to be grounds enough to get this man fired.

As for Rioux’s deal? The guy boostrapped a business with airplane glue and paper clips when nobody would help him do it, really. He did the impossible with very few resources. Now he gets kicked in the ass by a guy like Naber.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves in this industry.
It is getting ridiculous that the kind of move Naber made could actually happen.

Trade Ssrvice serves more than one vertical industry.

Eventually, e-services like product databases and Van services will be provided by organizations with larger scale that can provide these at a lower cost per unit.

NAED wants everything to be electrical only.

This strategy won’t work long term. Rioux had the right idea, but it conflicted with Tom Naber’s desire to control everything under NAED.

Association presidents should be looking out for the good of the industry, not to control all of the services that are provided to it. They should be facilitators for value to be provided to industry participants and open to multiple providers.

You all be the judge. Is our’s doing this?

Rioux got fired because his strategy threatened Tom Nabe’rs desire for control. Plain and simple.

Here is my suggestion for what it is worth:
This blog and especially the last three of four postings neet to be circulated wide and far. I didn’t know the blog existed till I was at I-Mark this past weekend.
Tom is an out-n-out bully that uses his hatch people J. Sullivan, B.Sullivan and J. Salimando to create so much puff and bull. I think that most os us understand that J. Salimando is protecting family and writes at Tom’s direction.
But this hatch job is a ture total embarssment to all NAED Members. Tom is a master at driveing people away and out of NAED. Someone should talk with former employees about the way he operates.

One very important thought.

If you let a man get away with a big one, he will become bolder and bolder and do more damage the next time. The desire for power is an addiction. One with the addiction always has to get more.

Of course, the next manifestation of the addiction won’t look so bad to us since we have seen progressively bad things out of the guy. The latest sin, then doesn’t look so bad in comparison. It actually becomes EXPECTED and we start talking about it in BLOGS instead of making phone calls to people we expect to LISTEN without fearing RETRIBUTION and ALIENATION. That’s when you know things are really out of the realm of sanity.

Based on all the testimonies on this blog, one would normally be tempted to say “where there is smoke there is probably fire”. The only problem with that is that we are witnessing fire and we don’t see it for what is any more. We have become the proverbial “cooked frog” who cannot jump out anymore because the heat was turned up over time until it was as hot as… a fire!

I don’t really want to see what happens next if NAED leadership continues on its current course.

Don’t you feel the heat? Jump out of the pan and look at the pattern of behavior exhibited by the NAED president over time. Do you want your industry to be a sad joke?

If you think you deserve better… Then speak up to the NAED and IDEA boards.

– A Friend

Think about why and how you only got your fourth or fifth choice in there. A magazine publisher? I thought this was an industry leadership job. One that calls for a little more than running nice little meetings, a tidy little periodical and a website.

The magazine publsher went on a power trip. Now he’s sending one of his henchpeople to dig deeper into IDEA so over time, once again… he will simply graduate her into the leadership role because nobody else will want the job in the poisoned waters when he himself is the poison that no sane person will want to work around.

ANd there you have it, you will be down to one person that wants the job.

That’s the problem.

Could someone actually come into the job at IDEA and keep it running with all the distraction that Tom and his bunch have caused?
Tom has for the last three years made it a point to be as disruptive as possible with the entire IDEA staff. He has threaten them, threaten Mike and has overe time pushed light weight blow hards like Joe S and Bethany S into the spot light to create as much trouble as possible for Mike Rioux and the IDEA board. Even now Bethany S. makes demands on the IDEA staff with overt threats.
While I doubt that NAED will replace Tom, because Graybar actually gives Tom his marching orders, IDEA will loose vision and only cater to very large distributors.

IDEA with a vision?
One would think not.

Neither association should even come close to owning or running IDEA. For it to be of value, IDEA needs to go private to keep meddling hands and egos out the way.
The original investors should take back over ownership and form a privately held for profit corp. and offer the same services.
This is pure nonsense and extremely poor business letting either or both associations run IDEA.
The vision that Mike and the true leaders put together was destroyed by a ego grabbing association person.

For there to a good vision, IDEA, especially the IDW to be of value, it needs to be away from prying hands ond power grabbing people.

There have been a number of comments about NAED and I would say that the people that actually do the work are nice people.They do their job.
The ” Naive pollyana leader” and his henchmen are the real problem that the membership have with all the BS and power play that they have sitrred up.
The shear suggestion that the “Pollyana gang” knows anything about how to run a distribution business is very naive of you as a reader of this blog.The guy that stirred up this mess is a magazine publisher. Not a leader of a professional electrical wholesale electric business persons association.
By his comments in print & his henchmen’s also, it is very obvious they don’t have a clue about the wholesale electrical distribution market. They couldn’t tell it like it actually is if their life depended on it.

As someone pointed out last week @ I-Mark, it is time for action.
To Fred, Harry & Bill, we should
talk at NAED Eastern.
Jim B. in MO

I don’t think readers are naive in thinking that we have a knowledgeable person running NAED. They either don’t care enough or don’t know how to get a new president.

There are possibly three reasons that we tolerate inappropriate behavior from the president.

1. Nobody cares enough to step in
2. Nobody knows the procedure that must be followed to remove the president as specified in the bylaws of NAED
3. The bylaws really don’t mean anything. They didn’t seem to mean anything in the removal of Mike Rioux. SO why would anybody bother? Just pull a palace coup.

As a member of NAED you all are privy to a copy of the bylaws upon demand. Go for it. Somebody needs to put the “pro” back in “Protocol”

Isn’t it amazing, NAED starts taking heat in person and on this blog, and all of a sudden they shut off all the email addresses to all the Board members.
NAED leadership has never been really good at encouraging people to communicate except when it is filtered through Tom Naber.
Tom’s email address is the only one that is live.
From my desk, that means that Good ole Tom is takening heat and doesn’t want word send to the board.
The bylaws subject intrigues me….how do we get Tom replaced?
Several of us have been talking “off line” and had pretty well agreed to meet in Bermuda at maybe Hubbell. But this is really a much bigger issue.This guy thinks he can do anything he wants and no one will stop him.
Anyone got a netter suggestion than waiting?
It is time for action!

Not to worry. here they are again.

jsummerlin@mayerelectric.com;

barker@sprelec.com;

robert.reynolds@gbe.com;

tony.burr@sonepar-us.com;

sbellwoar@col-elec.com;

john.spoor@stateelectric.com

steven.margolius@hdsupply.com;

jrisk@kirbyrisk.com;

mcnaughj@mc-mc.com;

duda@butlersupply.com;

jeff.schaper@ge.com;

gabebe@wescodist.com;

gbruni@unitedelectric.com;

leehite@hiteco.com;

bruce.kogod@mauriceelectric.com;

dwaterman@rexelusa.com;

tmiller@border-states.com;

jhuff4321@aol.com;

tisenberg@westernextralite.com;

billelliott@elliottelectric.com;

Thanks for the email addresses.
I wouldn’t put it past NAED Corporate to tout B. Sullivan as the next planted(for Ton Naber purposes)President of IDEA.Probably will use some phony recommendation that she might make up.

It is pretty fair to say that TN has visions of taking the electrical distribution industry back to the cave and blocking all progress and technology that can drive coast from the channel.
AHHHH to the good ole days when Tom though he was important.
Has anyone stoppred and thought how much money and time, this illegal take over has cost?
I have and it is scary to me.
All the people that are calling for action with TN are right…and thanks for the email addresses.
That idea of taking IDEA private may have more merit than I first gave it.

If, God forbid, B. Sullivan is on the list, I sure hope that her resume is investigated thoroughly. Education, references and managerial experience.

It is very unfortunate that NAED’s good ole boy club is seeking to run an organization (IDEA) that they really don’t understand.Just look at the postings above.
What has happened (with this take over) is almost as classic as the saying:”I’m from the government and I’m here to help!” There is “No Vision” from NAED. Just a power grab.
Some of the public statements by NAED corporate are worthless air being spouted about.
Going private would probably be the best thing that could happen to IDEA. I’m not going to Eastern, but will talk with some of you when you get back.
JBL

Interesting meeting out West yesterday about the mess that has been caused by TN, JS and BS.
There is merit in forming a seperate IDEA like company and distributor association.
We’ll see if this action takes hold in the East.
Tim J and Henry L.

With B. Sullivan being promoted ( and probably being coached by Tom) by T. Naber, do you think that Naber expects to sandbag the manufacturerrs(these are the companies that put up real money for IDEA) so that he can run IDEA as a deaprtment of NAED?
Duh…
This is the same guy who blew off the potential JV with TSC that would have forced cost from the channel.
D. Fitzgibbons needs to make sure of who the actual replacement is at IDEA….other wise the investing manufacturers can kiss their investmrnet Good bye……
From a manufacturer out west.

I wonder if Tom and Joe Sullivan and or Todd Kumm are on the selection committee.

Let’s see, that would be same people in the judge’s chair as on the jury and two on the board.

Doesn’t anybody smell anything here?

What a kangaroo court organization we belong to. This is a total joke and if we let this go on, so are WE.

Tom was overheard more than two years ago at an NAED meeting out west promoting B Sullivan for the job. “She would be great at that job”.

At NAED National this year he was overheard telling Mike Rioux that IDEA was going to be reporting in to NAED and himself and Mike Rioux was just going to have to get used to it.

This has been Naber’s plot all along… to take over IDEA and put it under NAED. He tries to do this sort of thing with most things

It looks like our industry “leader” is going to be successful with this takeover. I’ve heard that he’s stacked the selection committee! Members supposedly are him, Evan Gaddis, Todd Krum (that’s at least 2 votes for Bethany, three if Gaddis continues to support Tom) and Dave Fitzgibbons from Ilsco. Amazing that manufacturers who have invested so much (money and people resources) are allowing people who don’t know (or small companies like Ilsco) to make this decision.

Our industry at work for us!!

Tom has a lot of relatives in Australia – all kangaroos.

As head kangaroo in this court, Bethany Sullivan is in his “pouch”. He’s carrying her.

Why?

Evan Gaddis/NEMA President, probably got a “pass” because he was new…..but some manufacturers who have a great deal of money invested need to jerk a knot in his tail or run him off, if he sides with T Naber again. Just chewing his ass out is not enough…if he got that.
Just remmember he wasn’t always a General.

Why manufacturers would turn over this venture to a couple of trade association hacks and a country CPA (that runs a distributorship & probably didn’t attend all the iDEA meetings) from the sticks, is just un-believable.

The most accurate description of this power play by T.Naber is this:
Stripes on a skunk don’t change.You can paint them black, but it still a skunk.
You are looking at a naked power play by Mr. Naber. This is not personal….it’s about power T.Naber seeks to control IDEA. If manufacturers aren’t careful, they will hand over the centralized IDW (data & price storage) to a skunk.

This whole issue about IDEA is to save both the manufacturer and the distributor money! Not to let NAED extract a toll and add more cost to the channel.
Manufacturers wake up!
Bermuda is a perfect place to run the skunk off and take back control of IDEA.

Let’s see… kangaroo, skunk, what about weasel?

Weasels have a reputation for cleverness and guile. They also have tails that can be any where from 22-33 cm long and they use these to defend the food they get and to claim territory from other weasels.

Weasels feed on small mammals, and in former times were considered vermin since some species took poultry from farms, or rabbits from commercial warrens. Certain species of weasel and ferrets, have been reported to perform the mesmerizing weasel war dance, after fighting other creatures, or acquiring food from competing creatures. In folklore at least, this dance is particularly associated with the stoat.

Collective nouns for a group of weasels include boogle, gang, pack, and confusion.[1]

Weasels are found all across the world except for Australia and neighbouring islands.

Not s kangaroo, but a true weasel.

All these comments show how little regard own members have for NAED. There is NO distributor leadership in place that replace Mr. Naber. Pure neglect by distributors have caused this problem.
Mr. Naber is power hungry and can get away with it right now.

True we shouldn’t call Mr. Naber a skunk, weasel or snake….even though he is. He is not to be trusted.
Mr. Naber has stacked a board to hire one of several people at IDEA to do his bidding.Evan Gaddis, will once again be snookered and have the wool pulled over his eyes and do what Tom Naber tells him to do.
It appears that manufacturers will hand over IDEA and loose a bundle of money and people time, because they can’t or won’t make a decision to go private with IDEA.

So I guess it will be back to the cave days of flipping Excel disk in different formats from different manufacturers. Only this time, all the trust and hard work will have been for nought.
What a pitty.
NAED will probably send Bethany S. around with her water bottle and ambush some manufacturer that still comes around.
some where there have to be some cooler heads to yank this situation into shape.
Sad in Georgia

How do manufacturers get IDEA back on track and cut T. Naber out of the loop?
There is a lot of people time and money investment put into IDEA, mainly by forward thinking manufacturers and distributors.

Somehow there has to be away to get the distributors who really are interested in cutting money out of the channel back to the table without the getting the trade association involved. Keeping trade associations involved is like asking the fox/weasel to guard the hen house.

If going private is the long term vision, then the short term has to be stopping any hire (to replace the current president fo IDEA)until they can sort through the legal details to take it private.

Here is an interesting question:
If the current IDEA hire committee is able to hire a new president, who does that new hire person actually answer too? A group of trade association presidents and distributor CPA?

Good question. If some one does get offered the IDEA presidency, who would they answer too?
One would think it would be the IDEA Board.But that didn’t work…because of the association people wanting power.

But no, it was T.Naber who undercut Rioux, even when Rioux drove a profit to the bottom line.

So, Tom how often will the industry have to put up with you screwing up a company that is designed to drive cost out of the channel and you and your merry band of weasels/skunks and etc.,are trying to control industry pricing and exact a toll out of manufacturers?
You know it might be real wise for the distributors to sit down and take a real hard look at the NAED turn over while Tom has been president, do some 360’s and get a president that will do what he is told by a group of concerned distributors who are very serious about driving cost out of the channel. The TV shows at the meetings are designed to divert attention away from the fact that NAED really hasn’t done anything that is worth talking about other than go to some nice hotels.
At some point some there will be some manufacturers and some distributors who will figure out that NAED as such is not needed under present management.
Take IDEA private and let’s all make some money.

What is T. Naber being paid by NAED? He has several titles. Does he get paid for all of them?? Are we getting our money’s worth??
-Funds Donater to NAED

From my company’s view, it is important that IDEA continue to offer up pricing and product data that is usable in our system.
The sheer fact that NAED is grabbing IDEA to run is scary for us. Aside from pricey hotels, NAED has never in 20+ years offered up any value.
If IDEA can remain independent of NAED it will be a blessing.
I guess we’ll see some new management @ IDEA….but if NAED continues to mess with it…there is no telling which manufacturer will pull out first.
I like the idea that several posted above that IDEA should go private and be owned by the manufacturers.

Dealing with NAED in this situation for some is like they should receive hazardous duty pay.
Why?
About the only tactic NAED leadership seems to understand is ambushing manufacturers and causing pain for distributors.
They just seen to think if they put on a really good show and make it appear that they are being inclusive, they have done their job.
Not a lot of value.
J.S. Stevens

I sure agree with the hazardous duty pay thing and dealing with NAED.
The real problem is that NAED does nor represent all the electrical distributors. They would like for you to “think” that NAED speaks for all of electrical distribution.

No way….not even close.
Distributors, to my way of thinking, should latch on to ways to drive cost from their business….and change the way they go to market.

Trade Associations don’t sell any thing of value other than nice trips that some may want to write off. They are great at charging fees…especially to manufacturers.

We see many distributors that are loosing or by passing business because they get distracted by NAED politics. That is not the only reason, but it sure distracts them.
The market place is changing and so are the ways that product is scourced and sold.
IDEA the company, was headed on the right direction, because there will be continued consolidation, with ever larger markets that will be harder to get product data into.

This detour that was commanded by NAED’s T. Naber(& a couple of Sullivans) and I suspect some distributors, who really don’t want other distributors to compete with them, is a huge setback. Time will tell whether NAED runs it all the way into the ditch.

My closing thoughts for what it is worth, is that there are some manufacturers and distributors that have seen first hand the true cost reduction (like less overhead and paper) and claiming SPA’s over every weekend….these people understand what it is about. It you expect an association to be able to to convey that cost savings down or even out into the channel, without putting some sort of cost back in, you need to go get another cup of coffee and think about what has happend.
For the companies who have actually invested people time and money, gosh I hope you got your money’s worth.

OK, the rest of you manufacturers. Here is how to do this. In Bermuda!

1. Somebody that is very influential, well respected and fed up with not only an ineffective but dangerously meddling NAED president, organize a meeting to discuss the whole issue.

2. The agenda should be thus:

a. immediately get a legal injunction to stop the hiring of a new president for IDEA. Put that on the shelf for after manufacturers buy it out, take it private and appoint a new president that Tom Naber won’t have in his back pocket.

b. Draft a resolution to present to NAED to buy them out of any ownership in IDEA if there is any. Threaten to stop paying dues if we have to. Naber has been trying to control this thing and he’ll do anything to get his way. Does anybody need more evidence? We manufacturers, after all, DO sell through other channels. We do not need Naber and his consultants telling us what to do.

c. Execute any buyout plan or board resolution, company dissolution and new incoporation required. Determine which of these we need to do and let’s DO it!

d. Take the business private… we have to communicate to multiple trade organizations. Why should we let one of these dominate the whole scene, and screw it up in the process. Naber has done nothing but create a great deal of division instead of serving as an integrative force in the industry. His integrative words are just words. His actions are politically transparent and motivated exclusively by power.

It is, after all, our products and OUR data. Get NAED OUT of the ownership picture.

e. Draft a resolution to get the current NAED president removed from office and bring it before the NAED board. Not as a discussion, but as WARNING if they want to continue receiving the dues from manufacturers they just recently started tolling us for. Now THIS! If we don’t get this guy removed, he will pull a poison pill act and refuse to cooperate with the new, private IDEA. He’s gotta go. Get a new president that WILL cooperate. Get rid of his two henchmen consultants that he uses to either hatchet job the IDEA president or do stuff in parallel just to groom his replacement. (I mean, how productive is THAT?) The tactics of Tom’s henchperon are more like coercion and embarassment moves to force manufacturers to do what NAED wants. This is baby stuff. Stop it. We should not be treated like that, it’s laughable. Also, make sure these consultants have nothing to do with IDEA or anything attached to it in the future. I question the ethics of consultants that will do somebody else’s dirty work to take another person out for money. Tha somebody could be YOU someday. Get them out of the picture.

f. Appoint a team to oversee the creation of the new IDEA and a brand new strategy based on what MANUFACTURERS really need to take their products through MULTIPLE channels, not just the one.

g. DO put emphasis on the electrical distribution channel, as it is the farthest ahead in this area. Not because of Tom Naber or his henchmen, which were busy at work trying to show up or discredit Mike Rioux, who labored under the constant hounding and backstabbing politics of Tom Naber and his henchmen consultants.

h. Don’t blame NAED for all of this. Get rid of Naber and immediately put out an Olive branch to the good people in there that remain. Explain why it has to be this way. Is the manufacturer supposed to be the channel captain, or what? I don’t see any Wal-Marts or Home Depots dominating yet (they ARE channel captains in retail). It looks like it will be a long time to never before extremely well integrated powers like that take over the electrical distribution business. So it makes perfect sense for the manufacturers to take charge of this.

I. Start a REAL search for a new IDEA president. This one is a kangaroo court designed to get Naber his puppet.

J. Immediately after the meeting, start talking to influential distributor people to get this all done and get Naber removed imemdiately.

Let NAED then begin a search for a new president and give them a deadline for the announcement to be made.

Let’s get going and do these things. Are we crazy or what? (letting a guy like Naber foul this up so badly).

Let’s remember one thing. The problem isn’t NAED. It is just a couple of NAED distributors and Tom Naber and his henchmen consultants. It is time for new leadership of NAED. Right NOW. Then make peace and make something out of NAED.

Tammy…. we would like a chairperson, for once, to really thake the required actions. You could just be the person for this job. The guys before you didn’t have the courage to risk anything on their shift. Maybe you do. Listen to us when we approach you with this.

See you in Bermuda, folks.

On this one, let’s not get mad as hell, let’s just not take this any more.

A Mad Midwest Manufacturer

Wow!

That was smokin’!… clear as a bell, decisive and sounds like a plan!

Precisely why it won’t get done?

No guts, no glory, gang.

Don’t do this, and watch what Naber pulls next. He keeps escalating these insidiously arrogant maneuvers. It is so obvious it is scary.

It appears that T.Naber and gang including the Dough boy (Todd Kumm) are trying a old football play…get to the line of scrimage and run the next play, before what they have done can be reviewed.
The red flag has been tossed on the field.
Since the manufacturers have funded the heck out of IDEA, we do need to review, and retake control of iDEA….right now. Not two years from now. Right NOW!
I submit the way to stop all this crap is to take the plan above, file the injunction and
or instruct Evan Gaddis to stop the hiring procedure process dead in it’s tracks….like today.
There is a scheduled closed door manufacturer meeting in Bermuda, so I am told. If I have the wrong information, then we need to meet in the lobby….At this point I don’t care if Naber know or not.
At that meeting:
1.Review the ownership issues, make the offer to get NAED out of it….like right now.
2.Meet with Tammy Miller and explain what has happened and why manufacturers are taking this type of action. We have to remember that Tammy probably is being force fed a line of BS from Tom, Dough Boy and the two paid consultants (The Sullivans).
3.Then once the ownership issues have been sorted out legally….then follow the plan above.

I think a round of thanks is in order for Tom Naber for having finally shown us his true colors…Thank You Tom…

What a power hungry jerk. You have cost the industry untold trust and a lot of man hours and money, which I think you will drive into a really deep ditch.
There is no trust from our company with Tom.
Mad in Chicago

I think most of us understand that the situation has been politicized.
If this illegal takeover by NAED…Tom’s group, can’t be stopped quickly, the investment of time, people and money that we have made will be lost and the tail will be wagging the dog….so to speak.
The real problem here is to get the word up and down each manufacturer’s org structure quickly. Then decide what you are willing to do.

For those attending tonight’s cocktail party @ NEMA, it is a good time to extend the phone conversations that have started.

I would suggest that you check your company and see how much money you will be dumping down the gutter if NAED is allowed to perform this takeover.
I think that someone said it earlier, about the only thing NAED is good at is charging manufacturer fees and tolls, and sticking them with high hotel bills.

It you want to stand by and let it happen….then get out of the way and stop griping.

Getting madder by the min….in IL

I wonder how TN is going to feel as he walks the halls of the hotel in Bermuda, not knowing who it is that wants him out of there because he is a Vandal, after all.

Well, that should be easy Tom… almost everybody that has a brain and isn’t on your dole. We have all seen enough.

STOP the IDEA president hiring process, take IDEA private and run it 100% by manufacturer money, Get Naber out and then get the right people IN NAED to cooperate with us on OUR agenda.

Manufacturers should have come together to do something like this (IDEA) in the first place. These are our products. This is not meant to disparage distributors at all, but let’s wake up, aren’t we 80% of what distributors bill? Don’t we make huge capital investments relative to distributors and take on much more risk? The products are most of the value delivered to the customer. We invest most of the money invested in the entire value chain.

Let’s act like it. NAED with Naber at the helm cannot do this. Never trust the helm to the junior partner in the firm, anywy. They have less at risk!!!

We are most of the value equation and we trusted Naber with this?

That, my friends is NUTS.

Mad Midwest Manufacturer.

While Tom is taking over IDEA, GE has pulled off something that has got to cause many distributors to make them wonder why they pay dues.
What the heck is going on?

GE owns Universal/NBC and they go GREEN on TV for a week and just before that they get PL products and ‘GE branded product into Sam’s Clubs and Costco and several other retail outlets…and get this:
NAED has absolutely no connection to the promo.
I got to shake my head…this is crazy.

And right now, my into stock price is higher than what I can buy the same product for in a retail store….is there a message that our association has missed?
I think so.
A distributor behind the eight ball in Chicago….

Best I remember, IDEA was formed to drive cost out of the channel in several areas. Before NAED started meddling in IDEA, they had delivered on a huge reduction in cost by driving VAN prices down (IDX).
The next step was to develop a industry data base to cut down on errors (electronic transactions between distributors and manufacturers…it is like develop standard practices and processes). The largest manufacturers and many others have joined in and have placed their data in the IDW. There are still some other manufacturers that are needed to complete the majority. But there is a huge amount of data alreadt there!
Based on the cost reductions so far, many have realized a 2-3% reduction in cost and for some it has been even greater because they are able to claim SPA’s over each weekend. Think about the improved cash flow.

In the mean time NAED (The National Association of EXTORTION Distributors) has taken on the manufacturers with ambush tatics and have added a huge amount of channel tension…re:(Channel score card) and now a illegal take over of IDEA…all of this because Tom can’t get along with people?

If Tammy continues this backing of NAED’s ilegal take over because Tom can’t get along with people….this could end up hurting her and in the long run NAED. That would be a shame.
By the way I thought Tammy did a good job @ Eastern

It was very obvious to all that attended NAED Eastern at the Net into stock meeting that distributors and even the NAED’s lawyer, do not know squat about how IDW works much less anything about the legalities of pricing. Just think about this…a distributor & consukltant are now telling a manufacturer how to price their products in IDW????
It took a real professional at IDEA to point out very tactfully what the manufacturers should do…..
I’ll close with a quote from above in this posting if this BS continues: “Kiss all that money and people time ….Good bye. Sure hope you had a good time and got your money’s worth”.
A distributor in New England.

Extortion is a pretty good word to explain the direction that our association has gone. Some were being nice using the term “ambush” to describe how our association interacts with manufacturers.
Do we really need four meetings a year? I barely go to one…and am trying to see value.

I am having a hard time understandiing why NAED would take over IDEA. My guess is that they wanted to meddle in something else to draw attention to themselves.
It seemed to be doing just fine.

Tammy… have you done anything yet? I see Tom’s departure has not been announced… or maybe you don’t see how serious a black eye the guy has given NAED, and some of the good channel productivity efforts that seom good people have contributed. Good people, the best ones, when confronted with political power grabbers, will simply walk away and it will be a great while before you get them back contributing. Why? they like to make a difference and when a guy like Tom Naber tries to run them off because they are not politically expedeint to him or they won’t do his dirty work for him or they dsiagree with his tactics or his total lack of strategic sense, they feel like they are wasting their sincere efforts and use their energy elsewhere. That is am absolute shame. Wake up! the guy is divisive at precisely the time when we need someone that is a unifying, collaborative agent.

It will be hard eough to get the real contributors back as it is. Leave Naber in there any longer and the damage may just be irreparable. You need to have a replacement effort going before the next regional. Want your legacy to say you were the one that left this undone just when the move REALLY needed to be made? Not good for the first female Chair. Read the situation. Research what has happened. The comment above does not capture Naber (he can’t get along with people). He doesn’t even try. He’s paranoid and power hungry so he robs people of their territory and knocks people out of position. There’s a pattern of bahavior here job after job that he has held. Check it out. WHen you come to the conclusion that he has to go, you’ll get a huge amount of respect. Put the right person in NAED and you might even get some respect for the OFFICE of the president again. TN has become a joke and has made NAED a joke.

Imagine that, an association president organizing what amounted to a lynching mob and getting his man so he could put in HIS, er “man”.

If that happened on my shift as it has on yours, I would be livid.

Fix it and get a huge amount of respect back in for yourself and NAED.

One more thought. It is not enough to simply cut off the head of a despot empire. You need to get the lieutenants out, too. They will sabotage the efforts of a new leader and derail your unifying efforts. Mark those words. History is littered with those scenarios, as are many corporate regime changes that didn’t work because of precisely that phenomenon.

You need a new pressident AND a new cabinet.

Second that series of thoughts.
It is time for Tom to move on. Maybe he can get it straight that he is not the Publisher of Electrical Contractor…check page eight of that publication. They have John Maisel listed as publisher of Electrical Contractor….not Tom.

Surely there is a limit as to what even the current Chair person of NAED will put up with. The constant lies that are being told by the president of NAED.

The hired hands at NAED are good people…not so with the President & Publisher of NAED & TED.It is a sad day and year(s) for NAED as long as Tom remains on the job.
New blood and leadership is needed. Tom has driven a wedge in between manufacturers and distributors.
It is very obvious to the untrained eye that Tom has wrecked the channel and that Tammy’s call for including people has now fallen on deaf ears because of the past.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. NAED needs to wake up. How many times must we hear that people don’t see value? All these parallel efforts to IDEA’s standards work being done at cross purposes by B Sullivan… what have they really accomplished? Are people really using the work from these efforts and are they really working? Were they agreed upon by the IDEA people? You don’t just do something that you commissioned someone else to do and not get their agreement. Especially if you are a stockholder. You invest more in the structure and cause of the company you invested in… you don’t try and do it yourself. Tom Naber tries to control everything. That is not a successful style of someone in his position. You need all the help you can get, and you need to show RESPECT for smart people and your allies by developing a shared vision with them. Instead of developing strong alliances, he hires henchpersons to take people down and conduct hatchet job reports and run parallel, counterproductive efforts.

How much more of this do we need to see before we get a decent leader in that job?

This is really sad. I feel like I am paying dues for nothing. Actually worse than that. For the erosion of goodwill in the channel.

NAED is ineffective because too many board people thought they could tell Tom what to do. So you would either get a yes man or a guy that would nod and manipulate what he wanted behind the scenes. I guess he showed all of you board members, huh?

Good luck with your mess.

Do some surveys on what people think of the effectiveness of the projects that were at cross purposes with IDEA. Take the halo effect off, too. A lot of people don’t like to be negative against Tom. Ask people that really know the game and don’t care what TN will try and do behind your back.

New set of press releases about the new President for IDEA hit the email waves yesterday. Just kinda suspect that sand may have been put in Tom Naber’s vaseline, because NEMA actually got their press release out before Tom fired up his press release machine with all sorts of “false claims”.

Not sure who’s shorts the sand wound up in but just for the record Bob Gaylord (who was in public affairs most of his career) was Evan Gaddis chief of staff at his final posting. So did Evan Gaddis hire Bob Gaylord? What would qualify a Public Affairs Officer to run IDEA?

Maybe Gaylord is qualified to keep weasels, bad “Nabers” and henchpersons out of the garden.

That would be a really good thing.

Hope so.

One more thing. Does anyone believe what NAED puts out in the press any more?

I hope TSC makes Tom and NAED post a bond along with a letter from Tammy assuring them that NAED will get out of the way, should IDEA reach and agreement to JV with them.

In fact if TSC had a couple of big pairs, they would reguire a sign off signature from all the NAED BOD…..Tom is not to be believed….ever.

Someone posted something about a “smell test” to this whole illegal take over….I didn’t put a lot of faith in what was said until I personally heard Tom in Bermuda say that NAED oqned Electrical Contractor Magazine….
Tom just keep your mouth shut.
I feel sorry for Dick Waterman, because he will have to deal with Tom.
A distributor from Boston

Here is hoping that IDEA with the new President can be effective and not get frustrated with having to listen to T.Naber’s whinning.

The new president should be given a chance to learn the ropes. It is out hope that NAED can keep their hands in their pockets. If what we hear is true about a search NAED committee for Tom’s replacement, it would be a blessing if they would act quickly so that distributors can regain control of their organization.
Manufacturer in Chicago

One of the smartest moves we distributors could make is to replace Tom Naber with someone who knows what is going on while NAED seeks out the right person to run NAED long term.
The friction that Tom has created has not only cost the association money but has embarressed the association. So it is time for him to go.
Several have suggested Jack Justillian as a temporary President while a search is going on.
Jack would make a excellent President. He is one of us. This doesn’t have to reflect on Tammy Miller and could happen before May of 2008 just proir to Dick Waterman being installed as the new Chairperson. then neither Chair suffers any embarssment.

Jack has run a number of different organizations very successfully. So ask around and check him out. Jack is well known, so you shouldn’t have to look far to understand who and what Jack Justillian is about.
If you are comfortable then the NAED Exec. Board needs to hear from you in writting as well as by phone.
A concerned electrical distributor

cluck, cluck, cluck. I can hear the sound from each chairperson’s desk halfway through each one’s one year term.

Here’s how it goes, people. By the time a chairperson finds out he or she has a less than honest and divisive, headhunting, henchperson using, budget abusing… (check out how many different names B Sullivan has billed NAED under so Tom can hide the total expense)… that will usually be about six months into the chairperon’s tenure… like right about NOW.

That’s when they step back and say “Wow… what a mess… but you know… May is not that far off”.

Sorry Dick. You got the hot potato. Only this time there is no excuse for you not knowing this is a hot one. The blog tells all.

You are too nice a guy to have inherited this one. My advice? Work behind the scenes to move Naber out BEFORE you formally take office. The Jack J idea is really not a bad one….

Mad Manufacturer in Chicago

Jack Justillian is guy. He knows a ton of people, both manufacturers and distributors. He has been successful in virtually every venture he has been involved in.
More importantly to us is that Jack understood right away what Tom Naber did and how he did it.
Mr. Naber has given NAED a black eye and is currently setting up the new IDEA president to fail by starting his whisper campaign against the new president.

Dick I encourage you to stamp out and discharge T. Naber.
We will send less people to all the meetings as long as Tom is in charge.

In addition to the “whisper campaign”, Naber will have B. SUllivan continue to run parallel efforts to IDEA standards committees, adding cost and cross purpose confusion to IDEA”s mission. The current IDEA management will not understand that it is Naber’s mission to run him, too out of office until it is too late and they get digusted with the lack of leadership NAED suffers from.

Get Naber out of there… he is a relentless poisoner of other people’s watering holes until he owns their turf.

I don’t want to be reading about Gaylord’s quitting or removal 18 to 24 months from now because NAED’s chair and boared failed to realize this. Do any of you?

– A Concerned distributor

We need some people to contact the NAED Exec. Board about the removal of the current President and let Dick and Tammy appoint a temporary President.

Jack Justillian makes perfect sense to us.
From a Distributor in the Greater DC area that is not at all happy with the current NAED management.
Just think about this: We have 4 meetings a year for manufacturers to attend. Do you think that the cost of these meetings is reflected in their price to us as distributors? Well we certainly think so.

This email from TSC must be the hottest thing out there. It looks and reads like TSC is finally going to go on about their business and consolidate their business with their contractors and distributors.

TSC has wasted several years neogiating on a possible JV with IDEA, only to have it blow up because our/NAED president and his hired hit people didn’t like Mike Rioux. How narrow minded can one be.
Thank you Tom for adding cost to the electrical channel.

Tammy and Dick need to ease Tom out and get someone like Jack Justillian to take over and start a search for a real NAED President.

It is now February… well almost. Only March and April need go by before Tammy’s term is up and the next chair, Dick Waterman, inherits the Bad Naber problem. I hear some rumbles like Dick may have some issues arising out of recent developments at Rexel, and that may affect his taking on the NAED chairman’s role.

Something always happenes to distract NAED from its real issue, which is a dire need to find new leadership for the organization. A year chairman’s position is not enough to research, plan and put a plan of action into place. Plus, the NAED arean is so political that nobody will call anybody else on the carpet for inappropriate behavior. Tom Naber knows this so he does whatever the hell he wants… and just doesn’t talk about it so he stays out of real trouble.

My guess is that he has been told to lay low for a while (less visibility at the regionals, no presiden’ts column in the magazine). If he lays low, thinking may be, this will all just blow over.

Well… all this speaks to is that people don’t care enough about the industry as evidenced in the short memories we all have.

Don’t let this just blow over. Let Naber get away with this latest indiscretion and there will be worse ones that will cause a rift.

Let’s be frank. Tom was a number 4 choice because 3 others turned the job down. SO it is difficult to get someone for the job. Where does that say the problem really lies? Once manufacturers figure this out, meeting attendance and support will really wane because they will see no long term reason to stay in an organization that can’t face the truth and can’t face the issues and has no guts to take care of its fundamental problems.

Re: Electrical Wholesaling January 2008 article on IDEA: Naber says his mission was not to take over IDEA. What a crock.

This man is like a kid with his hands caught in the cookie jar. He was overheard to say at the NAED National in DC last May to Mike Rioux: “Look… NAED is going to take over IDEA and you will be reporting to me so you better start getting used to it.”

In the article, Naber said that he was not after the IDEA revenue. I believe that. Though it was not the revenue Naber was after, it defintely was the power and influence, and value added scope, given that the industry keeps consolidating and the number of members keeps dwindling. In that scenario, you need to expand your functional value added scope to remain a viable association.

What better way than to usurp something that another guy, Mike Rioux, turned into something of real value. Sounds like the kind of move that a vulture or a weasel makes. Wait till something is ready to be eaten, then swoop in and take it over.

If the writers to this blog did anything, they prevented Naber from getting his own plant in IDEA and taking it over.

We will see if Naber behaves himself. If a guy like Bob Gaylord can’t get true cooperation out of Naber…. nobody could, and it will be clear where the problem lies and there will be no escaping this time Tom… you have to cooperate with Gaylord.

Bob… your best bet is to keep bringing everyone to the table and get all the issues aired out constantly…. with Naber in the room every time…. keep Mr. plot in the dark and say things behind your back in check and on the up and up. Make him own up to his opinions, plans and actions in front of everyone and make him accountable. You know how to do this…. so go for it.

I wish you all the luck and success in the world with this.

Bob, Sure hope you can put up with Nabor…he back to his old tricks again. He talks in a bay voice and then embarasses your people. Then he blames it on the teleprompter. For those of us that no better, Tom knows these peoples names and tries to scare them into bowing to Nabor.
He is running dual efforts with his girl friend to muddy the water of the good work that IDEA personnel are doing.
Really suggest that IDEA needs to tell their own message….and not let Nabor take credit.
The current IDEA Chair is barely literate about industry data.

I wish you good luck.

The IDEA Chair person…otherwise known as Tom Naber’s plant on the board, does not seem to know a whole lot about what IDEA is capable of.
Sure hope he is voted off the board.
He’ll probably be in line to be NAED Chair person some time in the future….he did what Tom Naber wanted and help fired Mike Rioux and make IDEA a political entity that will be less effective.

Great move on the part of Tom Naber…he left personal ffelings over ride business sense. Then again he never appeared to have good business sense.
One PO investor

As a group of Naed distributors who are concerned with market challenges, we still don’t see NAED addressing real channel issues. IDEA may be good for some companies,but at the end of the day, we are more concerned with selling product to our customer base.
We don’t sell product, we can’t buy product from manufacturers.
Most associations are concerned with lobbying and less with trying to establish their corporate President as some kind of a industry leader….Tom Naber does not inspire us to do any thing but search for alternatives that are not associated with him.

I am impressed with Bob Gaylord. It was a nice function the NAED 100th.

From a business stand point, the idea of data sync is a “nice wish for”…in the meantime I need to sell product and get paid so I can pay my manufacturers.
What is with Sonepar taking these low margin jobs at cellar prices?

We use IDX….it saves us money.
The data portion is not close to what we need at this point.Maybe that will change over time.

Manufacturers are pumping out files to us on a regular basis and we still use TSC.

We question the value of NAED claiming they own IDEA…..
We do just fine here in IL

Was reading through all these postings and noticed that the IDEA/TSC agreement was for a 10 year term – making it expire sometime this year. And then I noticed a comment in J Sullivan’s report “Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the IDW2 as it is presently
organized and operated is not capable on its own of providing acceptable service levels to
its customers. If the present arrangement with TSC is not extended, IDW2’s business
model must change.”

I hope Gaylord has his arms around this, otherwise we might be screwed as Sullivan’s report also said sometihng like 60% of IDW’s data comes from TSC (hopefully they’ve done much better since the report was written).

And I need the commodity codes. My pricing/quotations systems are dependent upon them

With the decision to move forward with TSC data and to try an force a 8 digit code into the current data sets that IDW has, this will become a data offering that will be twice as hard to use…even harder that it is already.
As much as I like Gaylord, he bet on the wrong horse when he listened to the advice about using a internal code (8 digits) instead of the comm. codes. We are not going to take tohe time to sort through all the confusion….we’ll run our business to best suit us and that means we’ll run TSC data.
Sorry IDEA. This decision smells like maybe Mr. Naber must have given his sage advice.

We are a year later in this story. How has it worked out for IDEA and TSC?