By Natalie Overstreet Lias
Many organizations see the value in developing Software Asset Management programs based on cost savings, cost avoidance and license compliance risk mitigation. Yet in some organizations, the notional commitment to Software Asset Management never translates into savings. Even commitment to and implementation of a Software Asset Management tool may not be enough to ensure success.
I’ve written before about the need for a great team to deliver successful Software Asset Management, including an engaged executive sponsor, but I only touched on one of the most intractable sources of Software Asset Management failure: organizational politics. Software asset and license management typically involves the organization as a whole, even in the case of a large global organization with multiple subsidiaries. For this reason, Software Asset Management projects ultimately require global scope. In some cases, certain small or remote locations may be excluded from the scope of the Software Asset Management program, but certainly any large business unit must be included in order for analysis of software contracts, entitlements, inventory, and license position to be valid.
This explains why organizational politics can significantly limit the positive impact of Software Asset Management. If business units within the organization cannot agree to share inventory and entitlement information effectively, it is not possible to perform the analysis required to calculate an accurate enterprise-wide license position. This in turn, means that they can’t show where and how to realize software cost savings and mitigate license compliance risk. In rare cases, business units may be hostile because they are actively trying to avoid involvement with license compliance activities. However, far more typically, business units are uncooperative not because of any premeditated policy, but instead because they bear only the pain of Software Asset Management efforts and not much of the gain. (This may not be the case if there is an effective chargeback mechanism in place that allocates software costs to each business unit. In that case, the BU's have a vested interest in reducing software licensing costs.)
For example, consider a large a global corporation with numerous subsidiaries, including large American and European business units. The American business unit works with the US federal government and is therefore subject to US government regulation and rules concerning personal data. The European business unit is subject to different EU rules covering release of personal data. Each business unit has a separate IT infrastructure in order to comply with these regulations (as well as for historical reasons).
Both business units are open to contributing to Software Asset Management, but each bears the burden of compliance with its own governing regulations. The technical problems with collecting a common inventory that meets all regulatory requirements can be solved, but it requires input, effort, and commitment from all of the business units. And although IT infrastructure, software inventory and deployment processes are separate, the global entity purchases all software and will recognize most of the savings from Software Asset Management.
In this case, the typical outcome is that the business units drag their feet and do not fully commit to the effort. Their reluctance is understandable, but too much is at stake for the global corporation (and ultimately for the business units themselves) to allow failure due to organizational politics. A mature software asset management and license optimization program can help organizations reduce ongoing software costs by up to 30% per year in addition to reducing license compliance risk. So, the financial and risk reduction benefits are substantial.
The antidote is an engaged executive sponsor for global Software Asset Management who can bring these different parties to the table. The benefits of a mature Software Asset Management program are generally enough to garner commitment from the business units, but that commitment has to be made from the business unit CIO or VP of IT to the global executive sponsor. Software Asset Management is typically not disruptive in the sense of affecting ongoing business operations, but it does require time and commitment to make its promise a reality.
For your organization to realize the benefits from Software Asset Management and license optimization, all the business units in scope need to be on board, and the clearest path to success is alignment with and support from the IT executive team.
***
Learn more about getting started on software asset management and license optimization program by viewing our on-demand webinar.
