The document proposes installing most non-infrastructure software on computers by default for only 30 days, after which users would get automated messages requesting they uninstall unused software to free up licensing. This "Licence Recovery Policy" could save QUT $50,000 annually in licensing costs by more optimally using existing licenses. It would reduce procurement and disposal times as licenses are recycled within the university. Implementing the policy would require collaboration between different IT teams and buy-in from faculties, but could be established within 3 months.

1. LicenceRecoveryPolicy
a SAM Business Case
Prepared by: Ben Jarvis
Date: 29/9/16

2. Executive Summary
Let’s start with the profound statement: QUT has discovered the elusive ‘silver bullet’ for SAM.
Whilst other universities continue looking for answers to SAM questions, QUT’s search is over. And
the solution is so simple it could be implemented within three months.
What is the solution? It’s not a SAM tool (although KeyServer licensing plays a role); it’s not VDI
(although it shares a common precept); and it’s not an Enterprise App Store (although this should be
a complementary strategy). The answer is to change the way we deploy software.
Typically, applications are installed in perpetuity regardless of how often they are used. When a host
machine is retired the software is reinstalled on the replacement machine, and so on. This model is
deficient because while it enables a swift ‘zero-touch’ deployment, it ignores the far more important
step of removing the application when it is no longer needed; it offers no way to optimise licence
usage. In fact, large amounts of licensing are not used beyond 30 days from installation. The usual
responses to this problem are to engage in licence reharvesting/recycling or to simply not reinstall
the applications when the machine is replaced - both of which are manual and problematic.
A far better approach is the foundation for our proposal: the majority of non-infrastructure
applications should be installed on a 30-day basis by default. On the 31st
day, an automated
message requesting permission from the user to uninstall the application is triggered. Of course,
users may choose to extend their stewardship but the prompt provides a proactive and automated
method to reclaim unneeded programs and free up costly licensing.
Redesigning our deployment model in this way would have far reaching effects, transforming QUT’s
entire SAM landscape and enabling resources to pursue strategic goals. Rather than attempting to
micromanage licence reharvesting, for instance, focus could be on
contract management. Instead of struggling to save 5% through
negotiation, staff could be empowered to alter the contract entirely.
‘Precision licensing’ could replace site licensing, and so on.
Exact ROI is difficult to predict but could be $50,000 in cost savings and
$50,000 per annum in avoided costs. The other major benefit would be
the reduction in procurement, administration, and disposal time.
Gartner: “Recycling requires strong process control. However, with many IT organizations at low
maturity levels, most could cut their software spending by maturing their recycling and license
optimization processes and building them into their daily IT operational activities.”*
Overview & Objectives
Software asset management (SAM) has been defined as the optimisation of the software lifecycle
within an organisation. This broad definition is appropriate because SAM implicates a wide range of
services from licensing and procurement to deployment and disposal.
Put simply, SAM attempts to:
 Reduce Risk (risk of audit, breach, reputational damage, etc.)
 Reduce Cost (cost of software, services, resourcing, etc.)
 Reduce Time (procurement time, deployment time, etc.)

3. One common flaw in SAM efforts is the misguided idea that these objectives can be achieved
simultaneously through conventional efforts. SAM vendors often perpetuate this misconception by
promising outstanding results from their products and services. However, even the best SAM tool on
the market cannot achieve all three goals at once (simply procuring such a tool would immediately
raise costs). A more realistic challenge for SAM is to strike the balance between reducing costs, time,
and risks. For instance, although some decision makers would be tempted to lower every ‘slider’ in
the diagram below, appreciating the implausibility of this is the beginning of understanding SAM.
Without a holistic approach to SAM, cost saving initiatives can conflict with the efforts of other
departments. For instance, a team implementing a ‘zero-touch’ deployment policy may find it is
competing with another area tasked with administering licensing terms. Commendably, both areas
are endeavouring to implement SAM but their strategies will create frustration for each other (and
the client) if not planned collaboratively. Such a scenario is common in organisations struggling to
attain SAM maturity.
A third common view is to equate SAM with a tool or a project. Tools underpin SAM. They collect the
data and provide the mechanisms to enable SAM. But they are not a SAM solution in themselves.
Policies are required to govern SAM. Resources are required to implement SAM. And, perhaps most
importantly, an appetite for SAM is required. Entire departments and specific individuals have to
abandon federated ideals and abolish the “I paid for it, it’s mine” mentality. They need to
demonstrate an openness to alternative processes and ideas. Without this progressive mindset, SAM
benefits will not be leveraged.
Creative freedom (and the huge variety of software that comes with it) coupled with fragmented
procurement models makes SAM notoriously difficult within academic institutions. QUT is no
exception. Despite good intentions, its SAM efforts have been hampered by some common pitfalls.
Foremost of these has been the under-utilisation of its software investments – a problem that
easily arises in a risk-averse and decentralised environment.

4. Analysis & Examples
One example of under-utilised software is
highlighted in the accompanying
“histogram”. QUT’s main licensing costs
$80,000 for 200 concurrent seats over a 3
year subscription period. The blue
horizontal line at the top of the image
shows what QUT is licensed to use; the tiny
black bars at the bottom represent actual
usage during 2016.
According to our data, the software was
only installed on 230 machines.
Significantly, though, peak usage over an
eight month period was just 13.
An obvious question would be: how do we
avoid this error being duplicated by
renewing this contract or making the same
mistake on another application?
Before answering, let’s explore another far more common scenario, namely, standalone licensing
that has not been reharvested. Take two less extreme examples: Microsoft Visio & Camtasia Studio.
The figures on the graphs below represent the number of installations of Microsoft Visio and
Camtasia Studio in QUT’s fleet where no usage has been recorded (as at August 2016). The average
cost of each licence is well over $100 so effectively these two examples show unnecessary
expenditure of more than $50,000. In addition to the initial cost of procuring these unused licences,
the annual maintenance fees would also be realised as directed savings.

5. According to usage data, a huge volume of software apps are used for less than 2 minutes. Not
hundreds of copies. Thousands! Let’s continue the Microsoft Visio example: QUT owns over 500
licences – about half of which have no recorded use. Interestingly, of the computers that did make
use of Microsoft Visio, 130 of them only launched the software three times or less over an 8-month
period (Jan 2016 to Aug 2016). These kinds of figures are not uncommon.
Possible Options
Here are some alternative strategies which may be considered but each is believed to be an inferior
choice to our proposal to follow.
 Do Nothing – as ridiculous as this option sounds, it is actually the most commonly selected
one. In this scenario, organisations ‘play it safe’ reasoning that what they’ve always done has
worked, so why change it. Unfortunately this course of action is preferred because the cost
and time savings discussed in this document are not readily identified or socialised.
However, the status quo would continue to encourage federated SAM efforts and granular
reharvesting. As costs and resourcing pressures continue to rise, doing nothing should not
be seen as a viable option.
 Enterprise App Store – Rather than being a competing solution this concept is seen as a
complementary methodology. Although LETS currently provides an enterprise application
catalogue, it lacks integration with inventory data and service request interfaces. A
corporate version of their efforts should definitely be a longer term goal and shall be
addressed in a separate document.
 Virtual Desktop Infrastructure – VDI is a trending solution that delivers many similar
benefits to those discussed thus far and it is clear that it is a suitable approach for some
corporate infrastructure. The downside to this approach, however, is the cost associated
with virtual infrastructure and licensing. Some vendors don’t permit VDI and those that do
can charge a premium for the privilege or can change terms and conditions even after
substantial investment, making this option less attractive then our recommendation.
Recommended Option
Our proposal is that non-infrastructure software should be installed on a 30-day (or 90-day) basis by
default, followed by an automated message request to uninstall the application. Clients may choose
to extend their use but the prompt provides a proactive and automated method to reclaim
unneeded programs and free up costly licensing. (After a 90-day period, the user is offered a 1-year
extension based on their legitimate requirements.) Essentially, QUT as the licence holder merely
loans its licences out to staff members, thus dramatically reducing its overall licensing requirements.
Client satisfaction would quickly rise as unused licences would become accessible by all from a
central pool. Downtime associated with jumping through procurement hoops would disappear. The
overall cost and time spent on acquiring software would decrease.
Implementing this project would require collaboration between Software Licensing & Procurement,
Client Systems Engineering, and the IT Helpdesk. Significantly, the LETS teams already create
‘uninstall packages’ for many applications so the workload would not increase substantially. The real
change is in automating these packages to be triggered by default. The need to socialise the concept

6. would also be imperative to ensure Faculty buy-in. A change in their mindset is required in order to
abolish the “I paid for it, it’s mine” mentality.
It is estimated that the “Licence Recovery Policy” would save at least $50,000 in software
expenditure per annum in cost avoidance as well as significant savings where existing site licensing
could be reduced to ‘precision licensing’ – obtaining optimal licensing rather than ‘all-you-can-eat’.
Further, the proposal is expected to deliver a reduction in time spent on procurement,
administration, and disposal. Time spent on manual reharvesting efforts would also be recovered as
the larger number of deployments would only be temporary.
Although this solution would not encounter any significant technical difficulties, its success would
require support from management in ITS and LETS as well as efforts from SLP and CSE (working
together to define a pilot of managed software, exemptions, etc.). Commitment from large faculties
such as SEF would also be sought. Importantly, once the financial and strategic advantages were
explained, SEF indicated a willingness to contribute “their” unused licences to the central pool.
Similar education – in conjunction with stronger policy documentation and awareness – would be
beneficial across other key areas.
KeyServer is able to monitor installation statistics at any given time and would be used to protect
against over-deployment.
Of course, vendors may eventually respond by inserting clauses to regulate this initiative. While this
could reduce the efficacy of the solution, it would by no means render it obsolete. QUT’s licence
consumption would still be significantly less than what it is today. One risk of delaying the
implementation of the “Licence Recovery Policy” would be growing investments in VDI and named
user licensing, a current trend major publishers are promoting in an effort to assure future revenue.
It is therefore our considered opinion that this proposal is adopted at QUT’s earliest convenience,
with implementation beginning in 3 months and continuing as QUT’s hardware fleet rolls over.
You’ll get more. For less.
Appendices & References
*Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3382317
KeyServer Reports: https://sharepoint.qut.edu.au/divisions/ITP/Software/Pages/Reports.aspx
SLP information: https://sharepoint.qut.edu.au/divisions/itp/About_ITP/Pages/default.aspx