... maybe not.
While companies continue to pursue their relentless campaign of 'moving to the cloud' could they be overlooking their on-premise software position? (similarly, if you're not tracking and aligning your cloud consumption accurately you might be overpaying just the same, but lets just look into on-premise). At a recent (2022) webinar broadcast a former Oracle license management services (LMS) manager, Adi Ahuja, said that Oracle's audit has become "a sales enablement tool." Although Oracle states that their LMS "operates independently from any ongoing commercial discussions. Our services are delivered by a global team of highly experienced and knowledgeable consultants who collectively offer unrivaled knowledge on all aspects of Oracle's licensing policy." in practice there was a close relationship between sales and licence audits, Ahuja said. No surprise to anyone who has been subject to such an audit. But lets not single out Oracle - all of the majors undoubtedly co-ordinate an audit internally - bringing in the product team, finance, sales, and of course, the account team. Ok ... we get that, but how does the software baseline assist us in establishing what's really going on?Take the often cited audit line of 'we found a few things, but you'll just need to top up those products'. Easy enough - you buy the products in the renewal at your entitled price and all is good. What you're not potentially seeing though is the compliance cost as a result of those findings that has been built-in to your renewal fees. Compliance cost? The renewal fees look fine - what are we referring to? Well simply, you might have got a better price overall had you been able to breakdown where those costs came from, and that means having a costed baseline (ie. line-item level) that you can apply all of the adjustors to (inflation, price increases etc) and determine whether any 'additional' costs have covertly come in to play - aka, a compliance cost. Only then can you challenge the vendors assertion that 'you'll just need to top up those products' given what the baseline will tell you is how much backdating has been applied, whether the top-up was in fact at entitled price, and ultimately whether the overall renewal fee has been indexed reasonably at all. Consider the room your vendor has to move when you're faced with a multi-million dollar renewal - there are numerous places to 'hide' revenue pulls, and that doesn't change at lower levels, it just scales down. Establishing and maintaining a baseline can be something companies flinch at - they see it as just not worth the effort - by default then delegating this to their vendors, aka granting free rein to manipulate pricing as they see fit. So while it might take a concerted project (or how about an actual SAM practice!) to get going once established - and maintained in a purpose built system such as ComplianceWare - the overheads are much reduced and the benefits more easily returned. Further, it sends a convincing message to your vendors that you actively manage and are across your software landscape and commercial position, which makes them much more wary of any attempts to hoodwink you with a 'great renewal offer that puts any compliance issues to bed'!
0 Comments
Employee for Java SE Universal Subscription: is defined as (i) all of Your full-time, part-time, temporary employees, and (ii) all of the full-time employees, part-time employees and temporary employees of Your agents, contractors, outsourcers, and consultants that support Your internal business operations. The quantity of the licenses required is determined by the number of Employees and not just the actual number of employees that use the Programs. For these Java SE Universal Subscription licenses, the licensed quantity purchased must, at a minimum, be equal to the number of Employees as of the effective date of Your order. Under this Employee metric for Java SE Universal Subscription Programs(s), You may only install and/or run the Java SE Universal Subscription Program(s) on up to 50,000 Processors, If Your use exceeds 50,000 Processors, exclusive of Processors installed and/or running on desktop and laptop computers, You must obtain an additional license from Oracle. Key points - Count all employees, not just users, and this includes those outside the organization that support your internal business operations! How many individuals might that definition capture in a large enterprise, if you can indeed identify and track them accurately at all !! Then you're facing a tiered per user monthly subscription cost (that reduces based on higher volumes, phew) that would see a shop of 500 Employees facing $7,500 per month in subs! So what are my Java options ...
So lets look at the licensing currently available for Oracle Java SE releases:
And how do the LTS and non-LTS releases co-exist?For product releases after Java SE 8, Oracle will designate only certain releases as Long-Term-Support (LTS) releases. Java SE 7, 8, 11 and 17 are LTS releases. Oracle intends to make future LTS releases every two years meaning the next planned LTS release is Java 21 in September 2023. For the purposes of Oracle Premier Support, non-LTS releases are considered a cumulative set of implementation enhancements of the most recent LTS release. Once a new feature release is made available, any previous non-LTS release will be considered superseded. For example, Java SE 9 was a non-LTS release and immediately superseded by Java SE 10 (also non-LTS), Java SE 10 in turn is immediately superseded by Java SE 11. Java SE 11 however is an LTS release, and therefore Oracle Customers will receive Oracle Premier Support and periodic update releases, even though Java SE 12 was released.  This fundamentally raises some questions and no doubt financial concerns for many, so if you haven't done so already make sure you're across your Java landscape and can quantify not only future costs, but future efforts, and make the right decisions for how you want to continue with your Java developments and solutions.
Internal Audit Report highlights flaws in NASA's SAM Practices that many organizations will relate to.
The OIG summary of their SAM audit says it all:
... with all of the above quantified in cost terms as:We estimate the Agency could have saved approximately $35 million ($20 million in fines and overpayments and $15 million in unused licenses) and moving forward could save $4 million over the next 3 years by implementing an enterprise-wide Software Asset Management program. All very compelling to implement improvements and progress NASA’s Software Asset Management from “basic” — the lowest of the four rating options in the Software Asset Management Maturity and Optimization Model developed by Microsoft — through the scale as per tiers and representations below:
The report is an insightful read for all SAM practitioners - and responsible management and executives - with clear language and succinct descriptions of the scope and challenges in the field of software asset management, and a pragmatic approach to the creation of an effective SAM Practice that applies to any size organization with a notable software inventory, not just those on the NASA scale. So, to the findings ...It was recommended that the Chief Information Officer: (1) establish enterprise-wide (institutional and mission) Software Asset Management policy and procedures; (2) implement a single Software Asset Management tool across the Agency; (3) align the Agency Software Manager position to report to the Agency Chief Information Officer; (4) establish formal legal representation and guidance for vendor software audits; (5) establish a software license awareness training ‘short course’ focusing on approvals, compliance, and other issues a general user might encounter; (6) implement a centralized repository for NASA’s internally developed software applications; and (7) develop an Agency-wide process for limiting privileged access to computer resources in accordance with the concept of least privilege. Additionally, to strengthen the financial aspects of NASA’s Software Asset Management it was recommended that the Chief Financial Officer: 8) implement a “penalty spend” classification in SAP to track license infractions and true-up payouts and 9) centralize software spending insights to include purchase cards. Nothing fresh there, just the usual (and often unheeded) advice.
Unisphere Research, a division of Information Today, Inc., surveyed the readership of its Database Trends and Applications publication, which consisted of database managers, developers, CIOs, and IT directors. The survey, which sought views and experiences with software licensing and audits, was conducted in partnership with LicenseFortress gathering a total of 283 usable responses of which 155, or 69% of survey respondents, reported having been audited within the past three years, and 79% reported having been subject to a software audit within past five years. And the key findings? - the same fundamental approach and issues persist:
Lets take a closer look ...Interestingly, with all the hype and suggested benefits and advantages of moving to the cloud, close to 80% report that it has not changed their software compliance issues, or, in the case of 38% of respondents, it has increased compliance concerns. Only about one-fifth - 21% - say cloud has reduced their compliance issues. And even with close to half - 46% - reporting significant amounts of applications and data in the cloud (defined as greater than 25%), more than half of enterprises reported being audited by one or more software vendors! Similarly, audits themselves haven't changed much at all with 60% of respondents reporting their software audits lasting up to two months, 30% reporting audits lasting between three to six months, and 10% had audits extending more than six months into a year and beyond. The length of audits had 41% of smaller companies wrapping` up audits within a month, while half say the process lasted beyond three months, and 64% incurring additional charges for noncompliance. A substantial portion, 35%, had to pay $100,000 or more to achieve compliance with the vendor, while 10% saw $1 million or more in fees. So, in summary :Unsurprisingly, given the outcomes haven't essentially changed, the underlying good practice principles have also not changed - Software Asset Management is seen as critical to mitigating the impact of software audits by a significant share of respondents. Close to half, 44%, see SAM as essential to reducing the costs of their software, which is impacted by vendor audits. Another 41% cite the importance of SAM in avoiding compliance issues, with the leading choice being an internal software asset management/IT asset management (SAM/ITAM) team supported by SAM specific third-party tools. Disappointingly, it seems many respondents still remain reliant on vendor resources to support their audit. For some of the key underlying data click through the graphs below ...Well its 2022 ...... so we figure its time for a logo upgrade! Our first logo dates all the way back to 2015, so we figured it was due a revamp - a bit of modernising, a bit of an uplift, a look that reflects the more contemporary state of the company in 2022. While we chose to maintain the colour combination of the prior logo, we've gone with a crisper font and a change from the spiral graphic to a more 'pointed' set of two forward facing arrows, reflecting the journey that is moving a business from an unknown to a controlled state. It's now deployed across our web presence, and will roll-out progressively through the various documents and other published material, so we hope you like it! We'd love your feedback - feel free to leave your comments below.Oracle have announced the availability of a free License Manager tool to assist moves to OCI.
While somewhat limited, the License Manager tool may well suit those organisations that don't run a full featured SAM system (such as ComplianceWare), and still need oversight across their OCI deployments.Currently, License Manager supports the following Oracle products and options:
It also provides some further capabilities such as apparently automating the license portability rules and API's that could prove useful for batch loads and integration with related systems, so if it might fill a gap in your SAM programme could well be worth a look.
Participating in a recent webinar with industry CIO's presented an opportunity to evaluate what has - or hasn't - changed in terms of SAM in the technology space today. Perhaps most interesting - and reassuring - is that CIO's still recognise compliance as the major driver for a SAM function in their organisations, closely followed by the incentive of cost optimisation and savings as represented in the poll below:  Why reassuring? Well we believe that gaining a robust compliance discipline should be front and foremost in implementing SAM in any organisation - the benefits of properly managing your software assets results in two significant outcomes to your business:
Where does the future take us?When asked to consider the landscape three years from now the supplier risk element was significantly superseded by cyber-risk, and cost and productivity elevated to the major returns:  For these results we'd point back to the present - dealing with compliance should be the priority and the returns will follow. Cost optimisation and productivity gains should quite simply be a by-product of properly managing your software domain rather than the core driver - there is an inherent danger in putting finances ahead of compliance just as in the case of regulatory requirements ... ... you can't opt-out.
Insights from the latest Deloittes report following their global survey.
And of course the investment and value aspects are always front of mind:  Deloittes rightly call out additional measures that organizations should factor into the value equation:
Given the challenges in collecting correct asset utilization data within the organization (29%) and recognition that a greater investment in ITAM tools and technology (25%) is required, it is not surprising that specialist third party support features in the report, in the main operating an on-premise ITAM tool (16%) or providing such as tool through a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform (14%). Other key areas where external assistance is being sought includes software vendor-specific licensing expertise that is not often readily available in-house (27%), followed by ITAM tool maintenance (20%) or strategic advice to transform ITAM teams (20%) Lets not forget the ongoing bugbear that is audits ... what did respondents face in the past year:  And finally, we wholeheartedly agree with Deloittes prediction "that the more progressive and astute organizations will increasingly recognize ITAM as a longer-term strategic investment that creates ongoing value across the entire organization going far beyond just their IT team." They also go on to say "this would be in sharp contrast to the more traditional (and increasingly fading) mindset that perceives this as a tactical one-off short-term fix, primarily aimed at minimizing costs related to IT assets." ... so if you're ready to get started with your SAM program - or want to move faster - we can help, just get in touch! |
|
Unravelling license complexity for Business
ACN 623 529 751 |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
|