Over the last few months, I’ve come across several LinkedIn Groups with great discussions taking place about asset management technology and best practices.  The “IT Asset Management – Global” Group (3,500+ members), the “Software Asset Management” Group (1,500+ members), and the newer “ITAM Review” Group (400 members) have some illuminating posts (and at times, heated debate) regarding such topics as software recognition databases, asset discovery, license reconciliation, and software tagging, to name just a few. 

If you’re a LinkedIn member, be sure to join these groups to access and weigh in on the discussions.  If you’re not a registered member, it may be worth taking five minutes to do so.

Any software vendor that’s been paying attention to its customers in recent months will tell you that software licensing preferences are changing–and quickly.  The past year, in particular, has brought about an appetite for more flexible licensing models that are less user-centric and more usage-centric.  As IT organizations continue to chisel away unnecessary spending and take a more strategic approach to software asset management, they’re increasingly demanding “pay-per-use” (i.e. usage-based licensing) and “pay as you go” (i.e. subscription-based licensing) scenarios that are more directly correlated with the benefits received through the use of any given application. And vendors are listening.  

According to a Computerworld article by Eric Lai, vendors are rapidly adjusting their license offerings to accommodate and take advantage of this shift. The article notes that 43% of vendors have changed or expanded their licensing options to include such approaches as usage-based and subscription-based pricing.  (Subscription pricing, which has long dominated the SaaS market, is now becoming commonplace among on-premise offerings). And, according to IDC, these trends are only expected to accelerate. 

(more…)

This just in:  One of our customers recently completed a product review of our asset management software, Express Software Manager, version 9.0.  The evaluation was submitted to the ITAM Review and is, according to Martin Thompson, the highest end-user score received to date (90%).  Terrific!

The end-user customer is an environmental engineering firm with an estate size of roughly 580 machines (27% desktops, 60% laptops, and 13% servers).

Read the entire Express Software Manager review here.

To the customer who completed the review:  Many thanks for taking the time, and for helping raise Express Metrix’s visibility in a very competitive market. 

(more…)

I just read an interesting article by Infoworld’s Bill Snyder, examining what he describes as an inherent lack of neutrality among technology analysts that hinges on “the common practice of selling research and consulting services to the very companies whose products it evaluates.”  Snyder argues that analyst firms should be required to reveal potential conflicts of interest by disclosing their list of clients and associated spending. (This would be akin to the new regulations imposed on financial ratings agencies.) 

In the column, Snyder interviews a small company, ZL Technologies, that recently filed a lawsuit against Gartner, claiming the research firm inflicted significant economic damage by bestowing upon it the kiss of death—the lowest ranking in the “Gartner Magic Quadrant”—allegedly based on nothing more than the company’s lack of financial clout and marketing muscle. (You can read the text of the entire lawsuit here.)  Though obviously biased, it’s a fascinating read and offers a blistering indictment of a business model that has raised the ire of both vendors and end-users alike ever since research analysts first appeared on the scene. (For a good chuckle, here’s my favorite excerpt:  “At the core of this action…an economic model championed by Defendants that elevates marketing puffery over serious technology.” Wish I could claim credit for that one!)

(more…)

This is the final post in my blog series addressing the many myths and misconceptions about agent-based IT asset management technology.  The four parts to the series are as follows:

1. Intro: The Great Debate
2. Agent Deployment
3. Data Collection
4. Network and End-User Impact

(more…)