Barbara Rembiesa is president of the International
Association of Information Technology Asset Managers (IAITAM), a
for-profit user association in the US. She believes interest in IT
asset management is stronger than ever.
This is mainly due to the requirements imposed on public
companies to track hardware and software assets and document their
controls under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, she
says. Nevertheless, many C-level executives still fail to grasp the
need to implement effective IT asset management practices.
What are the hot-button issues for IT asset managers
these days?
SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) is one. When companies were getting ready
for Y2k, everyone was jumping through hoops to get the work done.
This is happening again with SOX.
Also, executive buy-in on asset management is a big issue.
Executives are not understanding this. SOX is helping some, but
there's still a lack of understanding. To help better educate
executives, we're going to be conducting executive briefings and
webinars in 2005.
IAITAM is four times bigger this year compared with 2003
both in terms of revenue and members. What's driving
this?
Some of it has been driven by Sarbanes-Oxley, but a lot of it is
word of mouth. Sixty per cent of our class participants return for
additional classes. The hunger for knowledge in asset management is
overwhelming.
What are the types of IT asset management certifications
that IAITAM offers?
We offer three certifications. There is CSAM, or Certified
Software Asset Management certification. We also offer CHAMP, or
the Certified Hardware Asset Management Professional certification,
as well as CTIAM - the Certified IT Asset Manager.
Is IAITAM planning to offer other
certifications?
Not necessarily. But we are going to be adding a contract
negotiation class in early 2005 and a best-practices in IT asset
management course in late 2005.
Does IAITAM have a position on the advent of multicore
processors and their impact on software licensing
fees?
Licensing needs to be more standardised around the industry.
Based on feedback we get from our members, 85% of noncompliance
with software licensing agreements is nonintentional because of
customers' inability to understand the terms of their
licences.
Our member board is going to start pursuing talks with software
publishers about standardising software licensing agreements during
the first half of 2005. That's going to be a tough one to push
through.
What's the current software audit environment like? Are
vendor-driven audits on the rise, or are vendors softening on
this?
I would not say it has softened. I talk to clients who receive
audit letters all the time.
Thomas Hoffman writes for
Computerworld