The threat of software suppliers hitting user
organisations with explicitly unfair terms and conditions in their
licensing contracts has receded in recent years, as IT directors
have become more business savvy and wised up to some of the sharp
practices used in the past.
However, IT leaders are increasingly concerned that the desire
of software suppliers to maximise returns from their existing
customers is making life tougher in other ways, leaving IT
organisations struggling with ever-more complex and opaque software
pricing models.
The Computer Weekly CIO Index highlights both the increasing
amount of management time taken up by software licensing and a
growing frustration about perceived value for money.
George Kalorkoti, head of IS at law firm Herbert Smith, said the
first challenge for IT leaders was to ensure that software
contracts were clearer and more even-handed, so as not to
strengthen the hand of suppliers further down the line.
"The vast majority of suppliers offer you a contract that gives
them lots of rights and gives us lots of responsibilities. Before
you sign a contract, you need to bring your supplier back to
reality."
Owen Williams, head of IT at estate agency Knight Frank, said he
believed that relationships with key software suppliers over
licensing had worsened as complexity had increased.
"We are having to spend more time managing software licences
with no benefit to our business," he said.
Crossrail's head of technology systems, Michael Pincher, said he
had seen relations with some suppliers deteriorate once a contract
was established.
"One needs to be robust with software suppliers and question
their assumptions. Quite often it is not the sort of relationship
you would like to have as a regular customer.
"From some suppliers we now get rather terse e-mails saying that
our maintenance is about to expire. It is a question of standing
firm rather than simply paying their maintenance and support
agreements," he said.
Pincher said a recent stand-off illustrated the prickly nature
of some relationships. When Crossrail had problems with the
functionality on a suite of software products and called in the
supplier to work on a fix, the supplier responded by initiating a
software audit at the organisation.
"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that some software suppliers
see organisations that are already using their software as cash
cows to meet their development costs," he said.
IT directors said they welcomed some of the added flexibility in
licensing in recent years, but this had clearly come at the price
of greater complexity.
Myron Hrycyk, IT director at Unipart Aftermarket Logistics,
said, "You can certainly licence in more ways now - per seat, per
processor, per site or along business parameters. I also welcome
the addition of subscription licensing. But while I like to have
different models to look at, it is very complex."
In the public sector, some organisations have benefited from the
enterprise licensing arrangement agreed between the Office of
Government Commerce and suppliers, but many still face balancing a
range of different licence models.
Ben Booth, chair of British Computer Society IT directors group
Elite, said complexity was unavoidable, but there was no quick fix
on the horizon. "My feeling is that firms cannot do that much about
it. It is just something they have to learn to live with and
address," he said.
Read article:
How to avoid nasty surprises in your software
contracts
Vote for your IT greats
Who have been the most influential people in IT in the past 40
years? The greatest organisations? The best hardware and software
technologies? As part of Computer Weekly’s 40th anniversary
celebrations, we are asking our readers who and what has really
made a difference.
Vote now at:
www.computerweekly.com/ITgreats