Re: SSA Global acquired by Infor

Tom Jedrzejewicz (an alias, no doubt), I am not familiar with past 
postings authored on this forum. Can it be you represent an interest very 
close to Infor? 

At any rate, l want to respond to your counter points (which I might point 
out are extremely "company" centered). 

1. You say that acquisition (if done right) equates to improving your 
product?? A product does not become "improved" because you eliminate the 
competition.
2. What would you suggest would represent a compelling reason for 
anti-trust enforcement? Wait until several thousand customers suffer 
extreme business disruption to the point they go out of business. The EU 
and our government has spent a lot of time analyzing Microsoft, but no one 
(especially the EU) is worried about SAP? When does it become compelling 
enough and how long will the recovery need to be, before it means 
something. The Oracle shareholder are free to sell? That's not very 
reassuring to the thousands of PeopleSoft customers, but then I forgot, we 
don't care about the customers, do we. I wonder who lined the pockets of 
the company (like SSA) for many years. You say we shouldn't expect SSA to 
be "forced" to stay in a business they no longer care about. SSA expects 
and get contractual agreements with their customers to make sure we pay 
our share. Do we not have a reasonable expectation that they in turn  will 
ensure that our investments in their products is safe? What a concept! 


Frederick C. Davy, CPIM, PMP
Business Systems Analyst
Interface Solution, Inc.
Phone: (315) 592-8101
Fax: (315) 592-8481
e-mail: fcdavy@xxxxxxxxxxxx




"Tom Jedrzejewicz" <tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bpcs-l-bounces+fcdavy=sealinfo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
05/17/2006 12:14 PM
Please respond to
"SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"SSA's BPCS ERP System" <bpcs-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [BPCS-L] SSA Global acquired by Infor






On 5/17/06, Frederick C Davy <fcdavy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Al,
>
> Your concerns are well stated, and I am sure echo several of the other
> members of this forum. It seems the mode of operation of corporations is
> to "acquire" their competition, rather than spend the same amount of 
money
> to improve their own product.

Done properly, this is a better business solution .. eliminate a
competitor, increase your customer base and improve your product.
Done poorly, it is a disaster, as any PRMS customer throught he dark
days of CA ownership can attest.

> I agree that government has "turned a deaf
> ear" toward this practice (what was the compelling reason for Oracle to
> purchase PeopleSoft, other than one man's ego) that reflects that 
business
> has a "free reign", as long as they keep the books in order.

And this is as it should be.  History has demonstrated that
command-style economies where government directs what companies can
and cannot do fail abysmally.  The market and the shareholders will
reward or punish Larry Ellison depending on whether the PeopleSoft
fiasco works or doesn't.  Those Oracle shareholders not comfortable
with the situation are free to sell.

IMHO the current anti-trust enforcement w.r.t. mergers and
acquisitions is about right; leave it alone unless there is a
compelling case that the harm to consumers or US interests is
dramatic.

> I am
> concerned that in this case we have 37,000 customers that now know that
> the cost of this acquisition and the resulting restructuring will come 
at
> the cost of reduced innovation, product development, and possibly
> increased (OGS) support contracts.

Are you suggesting that the government should step in and protect
these customers?

Any customers who don't like the current situation can vote with their
feet and dollars.  There are tons of alternatives, and it is likely
that the vendors will be happy to help and reduce the financial pain
involved.

> That's the down side. On the positive side, let's remember that when SSA
> was originally sold there was a lot of speculation that the Gores 
brothers
> were "bottom feeders" that would strip down and sell off portions of the
> company and then dump the skeleton. That didn't happen. What did happen
> was that a financially unstable company got put back on its feet, and
> setup for new investors to take a chance on building that company into a
> portfolio of ERP choices for their customers. We will always gripe about
> the cost of support, but I have had some very positive "helpdesk"
> incidences resolved in the last year (I guess this is really my concern
> now. Will that change?) with people that really knew the product.

Which brings us back to some questions:

Do we think this is going to be good or bad for BPCS customers?

Should current customers (particularly those of us on old releases)
use this as the trigger to switch systems?

Conversely, is there anything to be gained by getting current with BPCS?

> At a
> time when business is struggling with global competition and soaring
> energy costs, we need more focus on agile, lean, and extremely flexible
> support systems, not less choices, less innovation, higher support and
> purchase costs for products that have become loosely integrated to try 
to
> patch several different products purchased by a vendor to eliminated the
> competition.

At whose expense?  Should SSA be required to stay in a business they
no longer want to be a part of?  Should SSA's shareholders be deprived
of the returns from the deal?

As an aside:  SSAG closed yesterday at $19.08, and the buyout is
$19.50 in Q3.  On Friday it was under $16, and it's 52 week low is
$10.52.  This is a good deal for the SSA shareholders.

Take care ...