Spotlight On...

Contact Rory Canavan

Web: www.1e.com Email: info@1e.com

the risk of using private software in a corporate environment – not something the license typically permits. This could expose a company to financial risks during a software vendor audit.

An absence of strategy: Strategically, IT needs to keep in step with a business and not be treated as an after-thought.

Virtualisation: This is the means of creating (in computer memory) software titles, Operating Systems or even PCs and servers, so that load- balancing can take place on existing physical infrastructure. However, Virtualisation is a privilege, not a right; one that vendors charge extra for – ignorance can lead to seven-figure liabilities.

Failure to define platform scope: Software vendors may offer concessions on license fees if software is installed for Demonstration, Test or Evaluation purposes (or sometimes for back- up scenarios), however an IT Manager needs to have an easy means of distinguishing live or production installs from these; otherwise they might be billed full price for all installs when not required.

Q

What dangers can improper management of these challenges pose

to businesses?

Financial Risk: Typically, a software vendor-led audit will not seek a settlement through a formal fine (via the courts), but rather through unpaid license fees – nevertheless, the money still has to come from somewhere – these will be against installs that pre-date the audit so removing the software and refusing to pay is not an option as you will already have benefitted from the install.

Repeat IT audits: The world of SAM is notoriously small, and often carried out by auditors who have more than one software vendor as a client. If word gets back to another software vendor that your company had to pay out sizeable license fees, then it’s entirely feasible your company will be marked for yet more audits from different software vendors.

Reputational Risk: Should word get out that 49

your company does not have its IT house in order, then it could be viewed as embarrassing that your company has poor financial and IT protocols in place – and so it begs the question: What other elements of your business are also not in order?

Commercial Delay: Resources that should have been dedicated towards business as usual (BAU) are often diverted to address software vendor audits, thereby holding an organisation back from achieving its commercial goals.

Q

What can you tell us about software asset management and its value in business?

Operationally: Software Asset Management should be the fly-wheel of IT Operations; there is no doubt that many IT departments exist without SAM, but they would run so much better with it.

Strategically: Financial resource is correctly aligned within IT, based on the requirements of the business and how IT can best serve them – all underpinned by an effective SAM programme. Value for money and value for use then become by-products to your organisation.

Q

What’s different about 1E’s approach to software asset management?

Traditional SAM will seek to drive a comparison

between inventory data (i.e. what software is installed) versus purchase/ license data for the aforementioned software, and thereby offer a business a report to try and help make an informed decision as to whether it needs to buy more software or uninstall the excess. This is retrospective SAM.

(Please note: the approach above DOES NOT (typically) require a company to measure the usage of the software.)

1E’s own analysis of 75 companies has found that for the top 35 most commonly deployed products (excluding Microsoft Office) There is on average $195 worth of savings per PC which can be realized through software reclaim. These savings are a combination of future purchase avoidance and maintenance cancellation for unused licenses. For a company of 20,000 seats, that’s a cost of $3.9 million.

At 1E we like to be proactive with SAM. We attack waste at its source, and can automate the removal of unused software after a specified number of days (typically 90); the decision to remove it can be left with the IT department, or the end user. This process avoids the necessity to produce an audit and reconciliation report prior to removal, nor is time wasted waiting for senior management to decide what to do next. This is dynamic SAM.

Case Study: Sasol cuts its license costs with AppClarity

Cobie Nel, IM Services: Manager Applications at Sasol was looking for a software licensing optimisation solution to give visibility into which applications are used across all users in the company, and have the ability to reclaim unused installations of software and ensure that the company was compliant when it came to vendor audits.

“We have thousands of different applications deployed across the company and we wanted to ensure that our license liability was at zero.

“When an auditor comes along it’s important that you have reliable evidence of the number of licenses deployed and in use. With software license optimisation from a tool like 1E AppClarity we have been able to radically reduce the risk and ensure compliance with our software contracts.”

Just a few months into its program of optimising how software licenses are used and managed across the business, Sasol was able to reclaim more than 185,000 installations covering 15,000 PCs and laptops - an average of 16 applications per user.