IBJNews

IT consultant's expansion plans include 130 new jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based information technology consultant Apparatus Inc. plans to expand its local operations and create up to 130 jobs by 2012, the company announced this morning.

The company said it will invest more than $1.8 million to relocate its headquarters and service center from 912 N. Delaware St. to 27,000 square feet of space in the former WFYI studio at 1401 N. Meridian St.

Apparatus agreed to buy the building late last month. It has been vacant since the public television station moved a few blocks north to 16th and Meridian streets roughly 15 months ago. The firm expects to begin operating at its new site in the spring and will begin hiring additional employees as it prepares to move.

Apparatus’ clients include government entities and large corporations such as Eli Lilly and Co. and Simon Property Group Inc.

“Our ability to provide remote services for clients gives us the opportunity to locate nearly anywhere, but the business climate in Indiana is favorable, and there is real growth potential here with such a wide range of industry,” Apparatus CEO Kelly Pfledderer said in a prepared statement.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. offered Apparatus up to $1.3 million in performance-based tax credits and up to $100,000 in training grants based on the company’s job-creation plans. The city of Indianapolis and Indianapolis Economic Development Inc. will recommend property-tax abatement to the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Founded in 1999, Apparatus has 75 employees. The announcement of its expansion comes two months after Right on Interactive, a local marketing-automation software developer, said it would expand its downtown operations on East Market Street by investing more than $1.3 million and creating 100 jobs by 2014.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT