META Trend: In 2002, client standardization and managed build/distribution processes will enable adaptive and cost-effective end-user computing environments, with focus placed on standardized certification, versus technology homogeneity. Through 2003/04, IT staff will face challenges managing pervasive client devices and personal computing lifestyles. Models centered on IT group device ownership will yield to managed subscription services across corporate and personal devices by 2005/06.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Our research suggests widespread user ignorance of the implications of Microsoft's ongoing license changes. This ignorance, as well as the "fear factor" surrounding these announcements, is causing clients to jump into deals that are inappropriate for their requirements--for example, either full Enterprise Agreements or excessively pessimistic deals such as "freezing" Microsoft purchasing entirely. Although the major effects of these changes (e.g., Microsoft's move to a rental model and per-user licensing) will persist, we also believe that some users--particularly those that upgrade products on close to a three-year cycle--can mitigate the worst effects by careful planning. To date, less than 15% of Global 2000 companies have a completely formalized process for defining and assessing their Microsoft software requirements over an extended period of time (up to three years). We believe this number will rise to more than 30% by 2004, driven by Microsoft's licensing changes, as companies implement more systematic approaches to manage their Microsoft investments. About 40% of companies currently operate an implicit life-cycle management approach (e.g., assumed life cycles and termination dates for products, but not usually publicized or hooked into processes for business requirements planning or budgeting).

By 2006, we believe programmatic life-cycle approaches will be mandatory for all software purchases as part of portfolio management efforts, as other vendors emulate Microsoft's pricing model changes. To implement a structured approach to Microsoft licensing, we believe companies must better focus on understanding what they own, what they propose to buy (and need to buy), and how they deploy and manage these purchases--rather than by handling these decisions emotionally or in a digital "all or nothing" way. These considerations will allow organizations to both manage the pace of deployment (and the licensing impact of new Microsoft application models such as .Net) and determine the right licensing mix based on budget, ability to deploy, and business requirements.

Inventory
IT management must begin an immediate inventory of Microsoft software and user numbers covering OEM software, contract-based license programs such as Select and Enterprise Agreement (EA), and discretionary software (non-contract) purchases via Open licensing. This inventory is critical to establish the base line for software purchases. For example, Microsoft allows true-up of Enterprise Agreements (i.e., purchase of additional licenses to ensure compliance), but it does not allow true-down (i.e., rebates for unused licenses or over-estimates). In addition, true-up in Version 6 Microsoft programs will also be more expensive than in earlier versions, further reinforcing the need to go for more systematic license planning rather than taking reactive "get legal by overbuying" measures. Our research indicates that most companies overbuy software by 10%-15% because of an inadequate inventory process as well as a failure to factor in OEM and other licenses and intended outsourcing, divestment, or downsizing plans. IT organizations should inventory their assets (either manually or using inventory products such as TS.Census, Express Meter, etc.) to enable better understanding of their software asset base and their software consumption. Our research shows that a planned approach to Microsoft license planning and management is enabling many customers to justify adoption of cheaper programs such as Select with Upgrade Advantage in place of using an option perceived to be "safe but expensive," such as EA.

1 2	| Next page

Newsletters
	Windows 2000/XP Tech Update Today		All newsletters FAQ Manage my newsletters

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]