tjbyfield
17th December 2004, 07:56
In looking over some past news clippings of SSA and Baan I uncovered a previous association between Baan and General Atlantic Partners who bank-rolled the SSA-GT purchase of Baan, that I hadn’t seen before

In 1993 when Baan was booming it was stuck for cash and sold a one-third interest to General Atlantic Partners venture capital entrepreneurs. A couple of years later Tom Tinsley previously a Director of McKinsey & Co joined Baan as the company was listed on the Nasdaq and Amsterdam exchanges.

Over the next few years the company continued to grow and its share price hit $54 in early 1998 which put its value at well over ten billion dollars. Later that year the shares dropped 15% and Tom Tinsley was appointed CEO. The shares continued to drop over the next year and by the end 1999 Tom Tinsley resigned to take up a job at General Atlantic Partners where he is still a Partner.

SSA-GT itself was formed in 2000 from the bankrupt SSA with its by then ancient BPCS software but with the financial resources of Cerberus Capital Management and most importantly, by 2001, with Mike Greenough as President, Chairman and CEO. Having bought from Computer Associates: the Manman/x and MK products which were originally based on Baan’s early Triton offering, SSA-GT in 2003 with a fresh injection of General Atlantic cash managed to pick up Baan together with its yet unreleased new software version for $135 million (or one 74 th of its value 5 years earlier – perhaps just one percent of its real worth in 2003.)

Whilst it would appear to be no accident that Tom Tinsley was involved with what must be rated as the software bargain of the century, I think it is ironic that indirectly, it was software like Baan (Manman/x, Triton) that caused the demise of the original S3x/AS400 centric SSA company. As it was dying it even tried to develop a unix based BPCS but this simply did not work and had to be replaced at customer sites with the old AS400 version and this probably involved financial compensation for the added cost of hardware and re-implementation costs.

Another irony is that Baan’s financial troubles were probably exacerbated when the Baan brothers got too greedy and sought to rescind marketing arrangements with ASK (and others) when they were devoured by Computer Associates in 1994. Now all of the Baan products are back at the one company and earning massive support revenue.

I also see a great pity with the “saving of Baan”. Despite the excellence of Baan software, the financiers of SSA-Global expect to earn an excellent (or better) return for their investment of $135 million rather than earn a return on the potential worth of the software as if it were in the hands of someone who had paid say ten billion dollars for it.

It is clear that as ERP software the new version must rank with or above the now very old SAP and whatever is distilled from Oracle/Peoplesoft/JDE. However, it is not being marketed by a company in that league nor by one with the competence to market in that league. In fact there are suggestions that it is not being actively marketed at all.

Terry

EdwinvdBorg
17th December 2004, 11:26
Terry,

To complete your story: when Invensys sold BAAN Company to the GAP buddies and Cerberus Capital Management there was one man responsible for this in Invensys, John Duerden.
Interestingly enough he was just hired a few months earlier by the successor of Yurko, the Invensys CEO who insisted on buying BAAN a few years earlier.
Mr. Duerden had a pretty nice track record of buying and selling companies as one of the leading partners in a venture capital company located on Wall Street.
Not only was he responsible for a big Wall Street schandal at the end of 2000 just prior to the Enron case when he was CEO of Lernout & Hauspie, the "famous" Belgian speech recognition company that stunned Nasdaq with a drop in shares from USD 71 to USD 0.0001 in a very short time frame but he was also the CEO who managed to get Rank Xerox in a Chapter 11 situation right after his L&H adventure.

It is guys like this who are responsible that BAAN is being looked at as a joke because it was sold at such low price to GAP and Cerberus.

Personally I have always appreaciated the BAAN software and I still do.
Let's hope that SSA can do what Invensys could not and that they are not just interested in the support revenues.

Regards,

Edwin

tjbyfield
20th December 2004, 08:02
Edwin

Thanks for the information on the Invensys side of the deal which I was not aware of at all. I think there are probably still more murky details on the SSA side as well. For instance where has Cores Technology Group gone ? They were the ones that got SSA out of Chapter 11 and began the Baan negotiations.

As to the future of Baan/ERP-LN, we all hope that SSA-GT will put Baan back where it should be in the market but if that were going to happen I think we would have seen the signs by now. Collecting the lucrative support revenue is too easy and comfortable when compared to the market for new-ERP sales where the competition is fierce and failure is quickly and easily identified.

I think the following quote gives us insight into their strategy: "...Under Greenough and Graeme Cooksley, SSA GT's executive vice president of global sales and marketing, expenses have been reduced and the management structure has been streamlined by cutting the number of management levels between customers and Greenough from seven to four...” ( IT Jungle vol11, number6)

If Mike Greenough's skills were in marketing this may be okay but he is an astute bean-counter who is an expert at cutting costs and turning companies around, not in sales and marketing. Whilst Graeme Gooksley may be competent his experience is with the failed SSA company and he is from a very small regional market. He does not come to the company with a great depth of knowledge and experience gained from positions with competitors in the larger market areas of the world. As VP in this structure, I expect he needs to implement the strategies and wishes of the self appointed: President, Chairman and CEO.

The only approach for which I think we could hope under Greenough; is to give an exclusive franchise for all new sales to a large company who have played hardball in the market and can reap the high rewards and take the risks of rebuilding Baan’s position, while SSA itself follows a comfortable low-risk, conservative strategy that benefits from sales-royalties, but does not bear any of the marketing expenses. (aka: ASK in the early 1990’s until devoured by CA to get that franchise for marketing Baan software).

Terry