FICS Funded Development Strategy
In 1989 Michel Akkermans founded FICS. The product idea for FICS originated from the expectation that the computer industry would revolutionize banking through the communication of payment files via modems or telephone.
The company developed a prototype (Minimum Viable Product), while at the same time offering consultancy services. The consultancy services’ primary purpose was to fund the development of the prototype. As launch customers FICS approached smaller banks, followed by larger banks such as Crédit Lyonnais and BNPP Paribas. As soon as product sales were on track, the company reduces the consultancy service unrelated to the product offering.
FICS adhered from the start to a clear product roadmap and funded development strategy, with large prepayments on license fees by clients to fund the development cost of the product suite. The funded development strategy permitted FICS to grow for a period of 8 years without raising any outside funding. The first outside funding was raised 8 years after the incorporation from General Atlantic.
Michel Akkermans, currently serial investor at his own investment company Pamica, shared the following insights regarding funded development strategies:
• Roadmap: it is of crucial importance to have a clear strategy for the product development in the long term. It needs to be avoided at all times to transfer any intellectual property rights to the clients in respect of modules which form part of the long-term product roadmap, since this will imperil the freedom to operate.
• Standardization: developing certain modules or versions of the product within a specific client project allows for product design in function of real-life customer and market requirements. The disadvantage of the funded development strategy is that it tends to become difficult to ensure “single source code” control over the product suite. It is inevitable that customizations take place for clients, requiring the maintenance of many different software versions for different clients.
• Intellectual property: FICS management tried to downplay intellectual property implications of the funded development arrangements, as its clients typically requested to own the modules of which the development was specifically funded by the client. In view of the revolutionary nature of the product suite, most often management was persuasive in arguing that the company needed at all times to own all intellectual property rights, whether or not developed within the framework of a client engagement.
• Client specific customizations: if the client requested specific customizations which were unique to a client, FICS in principle had no issue in transferring ownership to the client.
• Generic functionalities – royalties: in certain cases, it was needed to offer additional advantages to the client in order to ensure full ownership of the generic product suite. One manner to avoid having to (heavily) discount upfront license fees was to offer clients a royalty arrangement, which entitled the client to certain royalties on the funded product sales to other clients until the client which had funded the development had recouped the development cost. The royalty was typically capped at an absolute number and limited in time.
• Generic functionalities – exclusivity: FICS used its best efforts to avoid exclusivity undertakings as a manner of compensating for the funded development to ensure its freedom to operate was preserved to the maximum extent possible. In such cases where it was unavoidable to offer exclusivity to the client, it was heavily negotiated along the following dimensions:
• Duration: to be limited in time.
• Field of use: not so relevant in view of single financial services focus.
• Geography: on a country, continental or worldwide basis.
• Competitors: exhaustive list of other companies to whom the product may not be sold indefinitely or for a limited period of time.