Software Asset Management, Common Sense and Saving Money

Have you ever noticed how cyclical everything seems to be in this world? Well, one of the cycles I've watched since the early 1990's has been Software Asset Management.

The cycle (at least in the US, I frankly didn't track it much internationally) seems to be: Avoiding the topic, Awareness of an issue, Deciding to do something about the problem, Doing a full fledged project, Pairing that project down, Letting nature take care of itself and then the cycle starts again.

Obviously there may be some missing stages and some more "refined" terms than those I used but the basic concept is the same. When times are lush we seem to get into this phase where we feel the need to do a full bore SAM methodology but as soon as money and resources get tight we abandon the methodology in favor of "just making due".

This topic has been reinforced to me lately through two things: (1) a brand new client who emphasized the desire to have a "ala carte" proposal for SAM implementation - our existing clients know that providing options is the ONLY way we work, and (2) reading a fellow SAM practioner's (Kylie Fowler) blog which focuses on the "practical" side of ITAM and SAM (check it out...some great information).

In all our methodologies, let's not loose sight of the basic concept here...SAM is supposed to save money, manage risk and provide the business with the technology tools needed to be competitive. None of this requires complexity, extraordinary costs and it should all fit easily into common sense business practices.

If you're finding yourself ignoring your SAM methodology to run your business, do a quick re-evaluation of the methodology. What is valuable and what is just extra work? Streamline it, modify it, replace it with something simpler...do what you have to do, but don't abandon or ignore it altogether as you'll then be doomed to repeat the cycle (losing out on all those great cost savings and risk management in the meantime!).

If this is still too much for your business right now - consider outsourcing your SAM. We do this for a number of clients and they've found that (a) our costs are ridiculously low compared to in=house, (b) we typically save them more than our annual fee in increased savings, and (c) it frees their staff up to focus on running the business. Talk to me if this is of interest to you.

What's an acceptable "out of compliance" number?

I was privy to an interesting conversation a few weeks ago...the topic was "What level of non-compliance is acceptable?". Basically the basis for the discussion was that being illegal on some licenses was to be expected but at what level does it become an issue.

Before jumping into all sorts of morality issues, I'll stop myself and instead put this in the context of...assuming it will cost me money to prove every single license, is there a point at which I can say "under this amount is not worth the cost"?

Now, morally I don't feel there is a number greater than zero that can be acceptable. If you can't prove licensing for a single product, you owe it to yourself and the publisher who invested their time and resources into its creation to buy the product (and then keep better records).

Getting off my moral high horse I will point out that running even a single copy of software that you can't prove licensing for is a risk to you and your organization. As with any risk to your organization, your organizations risk assessment framework should address this topic for you. But remember - you can't manage what you don't know and you can't apply a risk assessment if you don't have the details!

What are your thoughts?

Startups and Small Companies Exempt from Buying Software?

I was at a CFO conference last month and had an interesting discussion with another attendee over lunch one day.

This attendee (we'll call him Jeb) is the CFO of a small firm in California. This is not his first time at being a CFO and is an intelligent, articulate gentleman who endorses an entrepreneurial spirit within his company.

The conversation started out the usual way with him asking what my firm does (Software Asset Management-SAM) and then asking a variety of questions about how SAM benefits companies. The conversation then turned towards compliance and he shared that a former company had been audited by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) right before he had gone to work for them and had been fined due to inappropriate use of software licenses. He described some of the financial and operational pain the company had experienced as a result of not being properly licensed.

Finally, the conversation turned to the financial impact of outfitting an organization with software licenses. Being a business owner myself, I could definitely commiserate with Jeb over the costs to properly outfit an organization. However; I was amazed to hear him share his viewpoint that start ups and small businesses shouldn't be expected to license every computer.

Frankly, I was blown away. Here was an intelligent, financial professional stating that companies should be allowed to break the law, steal intellectual property, and essentially mis-state their financial earnings (when you realize that they wouldn't be including a major cost to doing business...buying software).

Desperately trying to stay off of my soap box, I raised these issues with Jeb. I tried every logical argument to try to have him understand how integrally unethical his viewpoint is...I hope I at least gave him something to think about. Unfortunately, he's not alone in his viewpoint...can someone please explain to me how you can morally or ethically justify software piracy?

Weeks later and it still amazes me...