5. Volume 4 Issue 6 5
Financial management for IT asset management is a busy
job, requiring vigilance and a detective’s eye for the clues to
better financial performance. At any time, established sources
of savings can stop delivering those savings, necessitating
finding an alternative strategy. My favorite example of
savings failure happened to a technology organization that
developed an extensive online catalogue with a vendor so that
employees could select what they needed and the price was
already negotiated. The program worked well for some time,
but the IT asset management team forgot to pay attention to
current prices. They were embarrassed to find out that they
were actually paying higher than current pricing and wasting
money rather than saving it.
When managing the hardware for the organization’s desktops,
awareness of current PC pricing is an important step. But
what other strategies might yield a more cost-effective
desktop? I have identified 10 questions for you to analyze
and consider before purchasing additional PCs.
1. What is the Life Expectancy for Desktops and Laptops?
Many organizations have successfully lengthened planned
technology refreshes. Some have negotiated longer
warranties so that replacements are easy, others have not and
use resources to repair if possible and replace when necessary.
Machines that fail are individually replaced with redeployed
equipment or through individual new purchases. If a
department has a software upgrade that requires more
computing power, the decision is replace or upgrade the
hardware configuration. There are plenty of examples where
upgrading the existing hardware was a good, money saving
step and just as many showing that it would have been more
cost-efficient to replace. Obviously, research is required to
figure out the best path.
Keeping hardware in service longer yields savings from
avoided purchases and less interruption of productive
employees. However, these savings can be lost if the
machines fail frequently and demand too many support
cycles. Ongoing analysis of the service received by asset
type is the only way to avoid this problem. Savings may also
vanish if volume discounts are lost either by not meeting
contracted buying numbers or simply through a reduced
purchase volume.
2. Is there an Opportunity to Redeploy?
Best practices for hardware asset management promote
redeployment of hardware if there is a sufficient pool of
possible recipients. Organizations with standard
configurations for employee hardware have been very
successful generating savings from redeployment. One
organization analyzed redeployment and determined that a
used PC only cost $166 to redeploy, despite required clean-up
and other logistical expenses.
Issues for redeployment are collecting, cleaning and storing
the equipment until it can be reused. IT asset management is
absolutely essential so that machines are not lost on shelves
and maintenance is paid on machines not in service.
Coordination with software asset management is also
important so that license counts are still accurate after this
process.
3. Is the Disposal Program Configured for Savings?
Organizations often dispose of equipment that has an FMV
(Fair Market Value) high enough that reselling should be
considered. With server consolidation creating the
unprecedented surplus of still-valuable servers, now is the
time to talk to your disposal vendor about reselling options.
Organizations that are required to park used hard drives on the
shelf for a few years might consider their machines unsalable,
but that is not necessarily the case. There are many excellent
disposal companies available these days and their offerings
are not all the same, so it might be time to re-negotiate the
disposal services with an expectation of being able to pay for
itself or perhaps make some money.
10 Ways to Drive Down the Hardware Cost at the Desktop
Hardware Savings Detective
Financial Management
6. 6 Volume 4 Issue 6
Jenny Schuchert
Education Specialist
IAITAM
4. Is Buying Used Equipment a Possibility?
Someone is buying hardware from disposal vendors. If the
organization’s infrastructure is stable and no plans are in place
for major changes, it might make sense to buy used. In some
cases, used equipment might be newer than what is in use
within the organization. A past colleague of mine grumbled
that every computer in his home is better than the one on his
desk!
Reputable sources, with a quantity to sell, are the best
choices. RMA, warranty and maintenance are negotiable
items. Evaluation of savings will require not only the
analysis of failure rates by asset type but also by acquisition
source so that used machines can be compared against those
in service since they were purchased new.
5. Are Policies for Hardware Actively Enforced?
Hardware policies include theft prevention, appropriate use
and a clear statement that the organization owns the asset.
When policies are not enforced, equipment can and does
“walk” away from the organization. The enforcement actions
of policies act as a deterrent for some losses and in other
cases, allows the organization to recoup financial value
If the policy for loss and theft requires a police report,
triggering technology to wipe the machine, or financial
repercussions if multiple machines have been lost by the same
individual, make sure that those consequences consistently
happen. Find out what insurance the organization has and if
there is any opportunity to recoup through the insurance.
Recovering assets for terminating employees is problematic
and without records and a process of retrieving the equipment
before the person is gone, the chances of recovering the
equipment shrink. In addition to the hardware concern, don’t
forget the software and data issues associated with a computer
not being collected at termination. Do not limit your scope
to just employees. Contractors are just as likely to walk off
with an asset and if the asset is taken to another country, the
chances of return are almost non-existent.
6. Do They Really Need Two Computers?
You may be walking in dangerous territory with this idea,
but are there any justifications required for the privilege of
having more than one asset? Is convenience a good enough
reason for the organization to pay for a second asset? Is a
laptop necessary if they also have a smart phone for receiving
email?
If it is possible to make it harder to obtain a second
computer through processes such as Request and Approval,
then do so and eliminate duplication.
7. How Many Employees Need Laptops instead of
Desktops?
Desktops cost less, work longer and are much less likely to
be lost or stolen. If laptops are already hard to justify in your
organization, then this idea isn’t for you. However, if you
know that people have laptops and don’t need them, then
replacing with a desktop and re-tasking the laptop is another
way to reduce new purchases of more expensive equipment.
8. Is Leasing a Cost Effective Choice?
Leasing as a business model for the desktop goes in and out
of favor. CFOs like the reduced capital investment and the
monthly payment approach. Lifecycle advantages such as
more frequent technology refreshes and no disposal issues are
great incentives from an IT asset management prospective.
While the cost of the computer is likely higher than if
purchased, it doesn’t depreciate and terms can be negotiated
for inexpensive purchase at the end of the lease.
Leasing absolutely requires strong asset management
processes that are granular to a specific asset. Leased assets
have to be returned in a timely manner to avoid possible
penalties. With IT asset management tracking, finding that
leased assets have been disposed instead of returned, forces
the organization to pay for a computer that is long gone.
9. What about Using Virtualization Technology to Reduce
Desktop Computing Power Demands?
Virtualizing at the desktop level is a significant task that
does not quickly lead to savings. The organization usually
has a large investment in desktops that are more powerful than
will be needed in the virtual environment. Replacing them
with thin client machines doesn’t make economic sense unless
they are replaced over time. Financial benefit from the
virtualization will happen slowly over time instead of the
faster pace savings that organizations have seen from server
virtualization.
10. Are We Buying Green Machines?
Since 2007, the greening of the data center and IT in
general became part of corporate citizenship and a way to
save significant energy dollars. Is buying green part of the
organization’s culture to stay? From the perspective of a
global company, the answer has to be yes due to the savings
as well as compliance with numerous legislated requirements.
While tracking savings might seem difficult, the
manufacturer and government agencies such as the U.S. EPA
will help you evaluate the savings that can be assigned to
purchasing more energy efficient IT equipment.
Financial Management
8. 8 Volume 4 Issue 6
Financial Management is the focus of this month’s Quick
Success Project, and is one of the areas within an ITAM
program that can quickly recoup savings for an organization.
Most C-level managers look towards some sort of financial
payback to any new program implementation, and many view
ITAM as a cost instead of a savings generator for the
organization. This QSP article presents just one area where
you can produce measurable financial payback and savings
into the organization.
Financial Management is a key part of not only your asset
management program, but it affects most departments across
your enterprise. Financial IT Asset Management is the
backbone to savings recognition within your IT Asset
Management program from budgeting to invoice
reconciliation. Financial IT Asset Management includes
many operationally recurring functions: budgeting, fixed asset
reconciliation, chargeback, invoice reconciliation, forecasting,
financial audit preparation, and billing to name a few. In
addition to these, the Financial IT Asset Management
discipline must support a strategic view of IT spending for the
organization.
Defining the invoice reconciliation process: The Invoice
Reconciliation Process consists of a few very specific steps:
• Verifying what was ordered during the acquisition
process
• That the IT asset was received at the price agreed to
• That the IT asset was delivered to the correct location
• The IT asset arrived in satisfactory condition.
• And, it also helps to correlate the inventory and financial
information within the ITAM repository with the
information stored in the Fixed Asset Database.
QSP – Defining invoice reconciliation process
The information that is stored in both the ITAM Repository
and the Fixed Asset Database needs to be reconciled for a few
different reasons. The first reason is to ensure that the price at
which the asset was acquired was the correct price and that it
was in fact sent to the proper location. Second, the
reconciliation is used to determine the nature of the asset. If
the asset exists within the ITAM Repository, then the asset is
obviously networked with the organization and is easier to
track and maintain. If the asset exists exclusively within the
Fixed Asset Database and is not discovered and entered into
the ITAM Repository, then the asset is more than likely off
the network and may only be discovered through a physical
audit or through enactment of policies that force network
connection at defined time intervals. Lastly, the reconciliation
process helps the IT Asset Manager determine what assets are
within the environment. By reconciling both the ITAM
Repository and the Fixed Asset Database, The IT Asset
Manager is able to fully comprehend all the assets that exist
within the organization, which assets exist on and off the
network, and which assets are mobile, etc.
Impact, benefits, and outcomes of this project to the
ITAM Program and the organization:
• Eliminates rework by Accounts Payable
• Allows for accurate regular payments
All invoices should be reconciled at the ITAM program
level. This ensures that everything that was received into the
ITAM program matches what was ordered, and the items
received are compared to what the organization is being billed
for. This is an area that the ITAM program can find
immediate, quantifiable savings for the organization many
times through errors on the vendor invoices. Invoice errors
should be found before payment occurs through the
reconciliation process and then brought to the attention of the
vendor for corrective action.
Invoice Reconciliation Leads to Savings
Review Those Invoices!
Financial Management
9. Volume 4 Issue 6 9
Performance data for vendor management:
• Streamlines payment process that will
enhance vendor relationships
• Provides for leverage during future contract
negotiations
Reconciliation of invoice data can also be used when
conducting vendor performance reviews. If a vendor has
consistent errors on their invoices, during the vendor review is
the time to address this issue. Based on the resolution of the
problem, you may also want to use that data gathered during
the reconciliation process during contract negotiations to
establish more favorable terms for your organization.
Eliminates over charges and payment for goods not
received
• Provides better tracking and allows avenues
for automating the invoicing process
• Creates an level of expectation and results
• Controls budget
• Eliminates duplicate payments
Within the IT Asset Management Program, double
payments and payments made on incorrect invoices are two of
the biggest areas of loss surrounding budgeted funds. A
standard practice of invoice reconciliation can greatly reduce
the number of invoices paid erroneously.
Examples of invoice errors can include:
• Double Billing
• Errors in quantity
• Errors in cost
• Items not received or back orders not noted
The examples shown are just a few of the errors that can
occur. There are more listed throughout the IBPL volumes
and I am sure you may have a few that you have encountered
as well that could be added to the list.
The invoice reconciliation process can be the initial
springboard in providing savings that traverse the entire
ITAM program. Providing an initial and quick ROI for upper
management through invoice reconciliation can create that
added buy-in necessary for moving the ITAM program to the
forefront of an organization’s current list of projects and help
cement the image of an ITAM as one of benefit to the
organization.
Barb Rembiesa
President
IAITAM
Financial Management
10. 10 Volume 4 Issue 6
Maintaining global license and software
inventories as the basis for strategic software
license management
The recession has put a magnifying glass on everything
viewed as an expense. IT is under pressure to keep costs in
check and many CIOs are yielding a sharp knife to cut
software costs, which comprise roughly 20 percent of the
average IT budget. Transparent cost charging methods are
extremely important to keeping expenditures visible and
manageable. This, however, can be particularly difficult when
software is the source of the cost.
Whether the organization uses a profit center or cost center
approach, accounting for software license expenses are
ambiguous at best. This is due to a number of reasons:
• double procurement (business units purchase licenses
locally because they are unaware/uninformed of
enterprise-wide license agreements),
• misplaced licenses (not migrating license inventories
from legacy systems),
• “discovered” or inventoried software cannot be linked to
the associated product use rights,
• automatic renewal of subscription licenses without
evaluating demand within the organization, and so on.
What it boils down to is: If you don’t know what licenses you
have, you can’t accurately track software costs.
Inadequate license and contract knowledge within the
organization only exacerbate financial and legal risks.
Entitlement-centric software license management puts an end
to this expensive mess by mapping software to its product use
rights and keeping this link intact. In doing so, the
organization is able to maintain reliable software and license
inventories, which are the foundation for all license
management processes and ensuring vendor compliance. It
begins with one key piece of information: the software SKU
(stocking keeping unit/manufacturer part number).
New idea for License Management
Back in 2000 when Aspera was founded, our idea of
entitlement-centric license management was completely new.
But once the benefits of having a SKU catalog become
apparent, no one wanted to go back to the traditional methods
(spreadsheets, sifting through gigabytes of inventory data).
We designed our tool with built in SKU logic, so all processes
related to license and installation data are extensively
automated. Data for new licenses is automatically generated in
the license inventory and software, including all its registered
names/signatures provided by the discovery tool, is
automatically linked to a license.
Without the software-license connection, mitigating risk
becomes a pipe dream—after all, how can a compliance report
be accurate if software cannot be consistently linked to
licenses? Only when the two inventories are comprehensive
and well maintained can software license management
provide the most accurate compliance analysis and help save
organizations millions in software costs. And this is nearly
impossible to do manually or with any other approach to
software license management.
So what makes the SKU so special? It’s the only reliable
reference to map software to its product use rights. If you
have the SKU you can correctly identify all the essential
information required to manage licenses effectively;
information such as:
• License metric,
• License model,
• Update/full version,
• Part of a downgrade path,
• Unlimited use rights,
• Underlying master agreements,
• Pure maintenance contract,
• Point value and point category (i.e. MS Select),
• Maintenance type,
• Maintenance timeframe,
• Alerts, and
• Restrictions on use rights.
With this information software license management is no
longer a rusty screw in the IT engine, but a fuel source for
eliminating risk and reducing costs.
Reducing Financial Risk: The Case for Entitlement-Centric
Software License Management
Avoid the CIO’s Knife
Feature Story
11. Volume 4 Issue 6 11
Added Benefits
And this is just the beginning. IT processes such as software
distribution, installation, and the help desk also benefit.
Compliance reports can be drawn up on demand, meaning
software requests sent to the help desk are more efficiently
handled and delays in installation are radically reduced
because checking for available licenses is easier and faster.
Knowing limitations on product use rights optimizes software
distribution, because the License Manager can easily check if
transferring software to new users, hardware, business units,
or regions is restricted.
Having a sound license inventory reduces and optimizes
spending on software by supplying the License Manager with
a complete overview of all licenses in the organization,
worldwide. The organization’s position in contract
negotiations is stronger because negotiators are armed with
the information they need to strike killer deals. Old licenses
can be assigned when the latest version of the software is not
required by the user. Cases can be identified where update
licenses can be purchased instead of the more expensive full
version. Licenses no longer go missing, reducing double
procurement. And they can be pooled to maximize
administration and overall license management. All of this
leads to reduced financial risk and improved budget planning
and cash flow.
The purpose of software license management is to help IT
increase business value. It does this by allowing IT to
successfully avoid risk while also maximizing the ownership
of licenses. The processes and too implemented automatically
capture useful information and make it available to the right
people. The key, is finding a tool that processes all the
essential data (legal, procurement, technical, and financial) to
keep the foundation (software and license inventories) solid.
If your software license management tool isn’t doing this, it’s
no wonder the CIO is on edge, walking around with a sharp
knife.
Christof Beaupoil
Managing Partner
Aspera GmbH
Feature story
13. Volume 4 Issue 6 13
Challenge
Understanding IT costs and effectively applying IT
chargeback and cost recovery methods tends to be daunting
from both the practical and organizational standpoints. Many
IT organizations lack the formal policies and procedures
required to understand the true cost of an asset or service, and
in many cases, are not given the budgets to do so due to
limited resources. However, as good governance initiatives
promote tighter financial responsibility and IT transforms into
a customer-focused service provider, the need for better
consideration of the factors driving technology decisions and
formal cost recovery methodologies continues to grow.
Opportunity
IT Financial Management processes make it possible to
fairly allocate costs for IT services and gain information for
assessing options, managing consumption and perceiving the
true value of IT. Building awareness within the areas of
portfolio, vendor and resource management results in
opportunities for financial optimization and helps build cost
recovery processes that help IT make cost-effective decisions.
Pairing this awareness with formal recovery methodologies in
a cost recovery platform enables governance and
accountability, and provides a choice of options for insight
into costs, contracts and usage, allowing an IT organization to
gain an understanding of the factors needed to drive
economical behaviors and business drivers.
Benefits
Developing a concrete, comprehensive IT financial
management process provides organizations with insight into
how IT’s service portfolio, vendor relations and resource
allocations will influence the cost structure as a whole.
Incorporating this knowledge into a formal cost recovery plan
allows IT to play an integral role in improving financial
management and fostering economical use of technology
resources, helping the organization simplify cost allocations,
improve visibility into cost structures and optimize resource
management. Doing so provides a greater understanding of
accumulated costs per service, the influence of third-party
agreements on procurement plans and the best way to balance
supply and demand.
The Daunting Process of Implementing an IT
Financial Management and Cost Recovery
System
The Deceptive “Simplicity” of Total Cost of Ownership
Several years ago, the Gartner Group introduced the
concept of total cost of ownership (TCO) to illustrate how an
asset’s contractual costs were not always representative of its
true costs. Because a given asset could be configured in
different ways — and therefore carry different workloads —
the varying combinations led to the possibility of a wide range
of potential costs. Many organizations supported this analysis
and implemented procedures attempting to capture an asset’s
true cost in order to derive a clear view of TCO.
Calculating return on investment (ROI), a related financial
indicator, can be even more cumbersome when you consider
that predicting returns often includes a large component of
estimation. While ROI is a widely accepted standard and can
be a very good indicator of the true value of a project, there’s
a tendency to ignore the costs required for changes beyond
immediate implementation.
Internal IT Charges May Seem Uncontrollable
As infrastructure costs and environmental concerns
continue to escalate, new policies and procedures are required
for analysis and control, reuse, disposal and replacement and
migration of technology. Meanwhile, executive management
no longer assumes that all IT investments will result in a
financial windfall and often forgo innovation and
technological advancement opportunities in favor of IT’s
daily, core activities. Though management may consider IT
costs to be uncontrollable, IT cost recovery is often avoided,
as even an utterance of the word “chargeback” elicits thoughts
of disputes and mistrust. Yet, without properly charging for IT
IT Financial Management and Cost Recovery
IT is Not a Cost Center
Cover Story
14. 14 Volume 4 Issue 6
resources and services, organizations won’t receive the critical
information they need to properly assess options, manage
consumption or understand the business value of IT.
Therefore, IT cost recovery is an imperative IT/business
dialogue because it encourages conversation and provides
visibility to the key drivers of cost and value.
Establishing Meanings for Cost Drivers and Units of
Measure
Perhaps the most challenging issue IT must deal with when
developing a cost recovery model is the process of identifying
and establishing appropriate measures. Certainly, measures
are necessary. But, what makes a measure appropriate?
Consider the SMART acronym that’s frequently used when
setting objectives — units of measure should be specific,
measurable, relevant and timely.
Also consider that some measures have different meanings
based on context. Varying interpretations are driven by
timing, roles, responsibilities, comparisons, inferences,
perceived alternatives and a myriad of other factors. IT must
clarify contextual differences by:
• Identifying the factors that drive costs
• Establishing control over how metrics are identified and
collected
• Defining specific policy and rules around the aggregation
and presentation of metrics
• Explaining how measures are calculated and why
A primary reason that service level management has
become a priority discipline for IT is that service level
agreements (SLAs) attempt to coordinate and confirm
communication about what’s required from IT, and at what
cost and quality. It’s critical that IT understand the needs of
the business and the influence of the various service levels
required to support those needs. Likewise, the business must
understand and rely on what IT can provide; measurements
must be specifically identified so they can be monitored to
automatically raise alerts when performance or availability
degrades to warning levels.
Resources are Limited
IT is often instructed to do more with less, while continuing
to adequately protect its assets and improve service. If
resources were unlimited, IT could certainly — and constantly
— provide the highest level of service possible. However,
funds are limited, making tradeoffs an inherent part of the
process. Economists define cost in terms of opportunities that
are sacrificed when a choice is made. Conversely, benefits are
sometimes quantified as costs avoided. When making tradeoff
decisions, it’s critical for organizations to understand that IT
exists to support business objectives, and as such, optimal
investment and operational decisions demand collaboration
between IT and the business it supports.
Is IT Still a Cost Center?
It’s been generally accepted that IT operates as a cost center
that makes only indirect contributions to revenue. Even
though management relies on IT as a strategic asset, the
historical focus was primarily on back-office efficiency gains.
However, IT has become a crucial mechanism through which
an organization’s activities with its customers, suppliers,
partners and other key resources are performed — making it a
direct contributor to revenue. The discipline of IT Service
Management (ITSM) helps transition IT from its technology-
centric cost center role to that of an internal, customer-centric
service provider focused on managing demand and
encouraging a competitive attitude that drives business goals.
The Good Governance Mandate
Today, good governance initiatives, such as ITSM, are
driving IT priorities by requiring the tighter responsibilities,
proven controls and enhanced resource stewardship that force
organizations to assess and improve their processes. These
mandates allow IT to play an integral role in business
transformation and best practice frameworks by promoting
continuous improvement and building competitive advantage.
But in order to provide the insight required to make the best
choices and manage and control costs, IT must develop
appropriate cost models with adequate levels of detail. When
creating these methodologies, IT must consider the factors
most relevant to sound economical behavior.
The Winning Formula: Driving Economical
Behavior
Cover Story
15. Volume 4 Issue 6 15
Simply and Fairly Charging for Services is Possible
Properly charging for services allows organizations to
provide adequate information and accountability for assessing
options, managing consumption and determining the true
value provided by IT. IT financial management processes
make it possible to simply and fairly charge for IT services.
There are three primary domains where IT can look to gain
knowledge and provide insight when creating cost-recovery
models:
• Portfolio Management
• Vendor Management
• Resource Management
Good IT Governance requires IT/Business collaboration
across these primary domains:
Portfolio Management Provides Insight Into Costs
Portfolio Management offers a means to validate the
rationale for cost recovery methods and policies, while
supporting stakeholders’ cost/benefit tradeoff decisions.
Performing corporate budget preparation and expense analysis
based on costs processed through the general ledger or
accounts payable system provides valuable insight into
planned expenditures.
Service costs, another piece of the portfolio, are computed
by recording general ledger and budget amounts as a baseline
and distributing these costs up the hierarchy to arrive at an
accumulated charge per service. For example, the cost to
provide email service actually includes portions of hardware,
software and labor costs. Redistributing these amounts to the
proper areas helps organizations compute an aggregated cost
of providing email.
Consistent measures need to be used to determine the
portions allocated to each business unit. Typically,
accumulators and multiple rounds of allocations are
performed to arrive at an aggregated service cost. These
collected charges represent shared services such as operating
system support or administrative overhead, which once
computed, will be allocated to the next level in the business
service hierarchy.
To improve the reporting and analysis of portfolio
allocations, cost elements need to be classified as:
• Operational or capital
• Direct or indirect
• Fixed or variable
Automated financial allocation rules and features within
portfolio management tools simplify this process by helping
distribute indirect costs to components or services.
Additionally, a unit of measure such as counts of user ids,
serial numbers or transactions should be identified for each
cost type.
And, what-if scenarios help IT facilitate the planning and
design of models for distributing shared costs. Insight from
these discussions can also help identify opportunities for cost
optimization and influence operational initiatives and
Cover Story
Figure 1 - A Comprehensive IT Cost Recovery Platform
16. 16 Volume 4 Issue 6
prioritizations.
Vendor Management Provides Insight Into Contract
Vendor management tools help IT assess procurement
processes, improve their understanding of existing third-party
agreements and discover opportunities for cost optimization.
When vendor costs are fixed, IT should encourage usage to
optimize the investment. But when costs are variable, IT should
foster an understanding that expanding usage can lead to
increased costs. Communication is critical for appropriately
influencing business behavior — as are the following
questions:
• Does IT pay for unlimited use software licenses but then
encourage limits through policies that charge per use?
• Are there prepaid maintenance or warranty agreements
that the business doesn’t take advantage of because they
don’t know they exist?
• Are there various rate options available when setting up
conference calls or webcasts that could influence user
choices if cost factors were known?
• How do the costs of printing options differ?
Only by using a service catalog to quantify cost and service
level options can organizations understand the financial impact
of their choices. Armed with this information, management can
implement vendor-related policies and procedures to
appropriately control IT usage.
Resource Management Provides Insight Into Usage
Resource Management ensures assets are identifiable, usage
metrics are available and cost drivers are understood. Tools can
help track owned resources and automatically discover
hardware and software related to those resources within the IT
environment. Likewise, time-tracking systems provide insight
into labor costs, and automated reconciliation provides
management with an efficient means of identifying
discrepancies.
The fundamental economic concepts of supply and demand
influence the cost of resources, and must be considered as well.
For example, when demand on IT increases, resource spending
increases in order to provide the services needed to meet
demand. Many organizations incrementally increase resource
levels beyond demand, meaning they often plan for a capacity
that won’t be realized.
To avoid this situation, it’s important to account for the four
areas of resource planning:
• Planned demand
• Unplanned demand
• Planned capacity
• Unplanned capacity
Financial management methods help IT estimate — or plan
— demand and develop a budget that accounts for new
expenses. To protect against unplanned expenses, an estimate
is often added for additional demand and an extra level of
capacity is built into budget estimates.
Models that define and account for customer demands should
be implemented to provide visibility into resource costs and
enable proper management. As such, the business will pay for
the access to, rather than actual use of, resources, and become
conscious of identifying real needs, quantifying requirements
and prioritizing by value. For example, instead of requesting
disk space, consumers will pay for the ability to access and
store email for a specific number of users, or instead of buying
bandwidth, consumers will request system access with a
quantifiable response time.
Demand-focused charging or cost recovery models such as
these shift the business conversation to a discussion of value
and facilitates a consensus about how IT resources should be
contributed. Responsibility for managing capacity, and its cost,
is left appropriately with IT specialists.
Building the Cost Recovery System
Understanding the distributions of costs and assets across the
areas of portfolio, vendor and resource management provides
organizations with the information needed to achieve financial
optimization. Pairing this awareness with cost recovery
processes grants IT the ability to improve financial
management and steer stakeholders toward cost-effective
decisions.
IT cost recovery should be used as a key technique to
encourage and provide an incentive for the efficient, effective
and economical use of technology resources.
A comprehensive cost recovery platform enables governance
and accountability, and provides a choice of options for insight
into costs, contracts and usage, allowing IT to gain an
understanding of the factors needed to drive economical
behaviors and business drivers.
Organizations should follow these practical steps for
implementing a cost recovery and chargeback methodology:
1. Define and catalog IT services, including business-oriented
descriptions, scope, service levels, measurements, owners,
customers and users
Cover Story
19. Volume 4 Issue 6 19
already on the network, and running correctly, the software
agent would already report all the internal information from
the CPU unit. We would know memory size and type, disk
information, software knowledge and patching levels. We saw
no need to boot up the machines and this was a HUGE time
savings. We would only need to do this data gathering on the
few lab or non-networked units and that would mean creating
survey floppies and memory sticks (we wanted to be sure we
could cover every possible machine layout).
Presuming that the data collected on the connected
machines was accurate; we produced a master list of all
CPUs. This ONLY included Windows based units. DOS,
MAC, and all the flavors of UNIX would need to be manually
added due to the limitations of our software inventory
package. As stated above we would also need to check stand
alone units. The assigned tech would need to boot up these
exceptions and manually gather their data using the
aforementioned storage media Work would be done over the
weekends since we did not want to affect staff. We figured 5
minutes per machine even though we anticipated most units
would have their data gathered much faster (better to get our
work done sooner then go overtime). We hoped not too many
machines would have access issues due to their desk layout.
To lessen that condition, we would ask each affected area to
please prep for the survey by clearing the computer of toys,
plants, and papers. Each weekend had a four person staff
allocated. Since we had an approximate count of total
computers that were deployed, I could break out the counts of
devices by building and floor creating sub-totals for each area.
Doing the math, I was able to determine how much work
could be done as well as how to split up work. We figured that
the team could do between 150 and 200 computers per day
(about 300-400 per weekend). I did not want them hopping
from building to building so that was factored in, as was
visiting sites outside the home campus (we had 4 external
sites that needed to be surveyed). I put together the master
schedule broken out by calendar dates (of course taking into
account holidays [since we were doing this towards the end of
the year]).
It was time to get the teams out searching for lost assets.
The team leader was supplied with a master list along with a
So what do you do when you have been tasked with finding
all of the needles in a BIG corporate haystack? I say, "Grab a
strong magnet and get to work on counting". I was hired as
the first asset manager at a major art institute a few years
back. One of the first tasks I had to accomplish was creating a
master CMDB of every technical asset owned by the
organization. The first step was to determine what we wanted
to track. I convened a meeting with the network guys, a
representative from telecom, and my direct manager. Did we
want to track mice, external drives, keyboards, and sound
related items (speakers, microphones, etc.)? That was easy,
we said '"no" to all of these devices. Did we want to monitor
monitors? We went back and forth and voted 'no' to this one
too. You might wonder why we made this particular decision.
We came to a consensus that almost every deployed unit was
a CRT and worth less than $150. They were not only below
our financial threshold, but usually not worth repairing in case
of failure. (Note that this was back in 2004 when flat panels
were still the exception rather than the norm - it was only in
2005 that we decided to switch to that format.) That didn't
leave much for us to inventory. We basically had to track
CPUs, printers and select externals such as scanners (laptops
of course being lumped into the first category). Telecom told
us that we didn't need to worry about their stuff, but the
network guys asked to have all their servers, routers, switches,
hubs, etc. included.
Let’s Begin with Discovery
We had some data on what was out there but knew it was
incomplete and inaccurate but it did give us the approximate
number of computers we would find. We also knew the
number of desktop techs that could be assigned to this project.
Luckily, our contract with our support vendor included a
clause to cover this inventory project. Each year we could run
an inventory as part of their efforts. As an aside, I highly
recommend to the reader adding this clause to your master
contract (assuming you don't have one) since the payback is
significant. Just make sure there are no exorbitant fees for the
effort. We knew we would be asking the team to gather
information on the various units found out there. The real
question was what data was required for logging. If they were
One Organization’s Journey to an Accurate Baseline Inventory
Play Hide & Seek
Asset ID
20. 20 Volume 4 Issue 6
Asset ID
worth the risk - not to mention that this could eventually be
managed remotely (as previously mentioned). Lab equipment
and stand-alone machines were the only ones we MIGHT
need to touch, but we ran a risk/reward analysis and decided
to leave those alone also. Most every lab machine had highly
sensitive data and applications on it and any changes could
greatly impact their functionality. We just noted them and
informed their management of the risks and how we could go
forward in the future to help with risk mitigation and security.
The reader might decide otherwise, but remember that this can
become a serious time sink.
Time passed, equipment was scanned or manually read
when necessary (hurrah for the mirror sticks ...). Items
without a tag had a new bar code label added and this data
noted on blank asset report sheets. If they were already in the
master list then they were checked off. Secondary devices
were noted as child assets to a parent computer. Printers had
their queue names noted (when they were network connected)
and also had their physical locations shown. We didn't just
note this on the spreadsheet. We also placed the information
on blueprint maps we got from our facilities group. This last
set of information became critical to the follow-up printer
project that I described in a separate article [http://
www.iaitam.orq/lTAK Vol4 Issue3htm].
Reconciliation
Data was taken off the collected sheets and logged into our
CMDB. This ensured that our database had the most up-to-
date data available. We concentrated on discrepancies and
verifying that the associations between child and parent
devices were established. After a couple of months passed, we
had finally completed the inventory process. We had over
6100 C1 units and discovered we had about 80 devices that
we still could not find. It was time to put on our detective cap
and figure out where these things might have gone. Now, if
you were a missing piece of IT inventory where would you
possibly hide? Our first guess was that we disposed of the
items and did not track this fact. Sure enough, after we
brought out ALL of the reports from our data disposal firm
(both what we showed as removed AND what they reported
back to us as removed) we found many missing items had
been removed. This brought the numbers into the 40-50 range.
Next, we looked at the information we already had on the
devices. In many cases the units indicated ownership or
location. We contacted the allocated users and many of them
remembered those parts and what happened to them. They
told us they disposed of them on their own (unauthorized but
what can you do other than smack their wrist and tell them
never to do it again). They also would walk us over to their
storage closets and show us items they had packed away "as
emergency back-ups". We informed them that we had spares
and would cover those concerns. We also told them that a
deployed asset counted against the contract. We either
gathered these up as obsolete or indicated they were not in use
so our contract numbers would not be negatively impacted.
subset of the batch they would need to find for that allocated
time and region. Additionally, we also provided extra stick-on
asset labels. We figured there was an excellent chance that the
teams would find items missing tags or assets that had tags
but somehow weren't in the inventory. Of course we found
assets in both of categories (I recommend research on these
since you may discover that items were purchased outside the
normal system and that has to be followed up and prevented n
the future). To speed things up, and aid in difficult
accessibility issues, we wanted to use the bar codes on each
label. Each team had a scanner unit assigned to them and
trained in the care and feeding to make the data useful. Of
course we had the memory stick floppies packets ready. We
even got a few mirrors that were flexible and had extension
wands to reach behind devices (yes they did see use…).
Data Collection
As part of the negotiations with our vendor, we had senior
management sign off on this project but the information now
had to pass down to departmental level managers. They
needed to know dates, effort, intent, risk and fall back, and
access to a person in case they had questions. We also had to
let them know that we would be visiting EVERY machine that
they were in charge of. Since we had senior management
backing they signed off on the project (amazing how that
works LOL). We also got approval on our notification
message: we had to have every user turn off their machine and
additionally gather any sign-on passwords (in case something
necessitated our powering on their unit). This could include
BIOS passwords, network logins, screensaver and other
security protection. They were told that if the information was
not available their machine would still be accessed as needed
(using system administration tools). We debated back and
forth about anything else we wanted to do with the machines.
Because we would be 'touching' every machine, this was not
the time to do anything in terms of maintenance or upgrades
of any sort. We decided the inevitable scope creep was not
21. Volume 4 Issue 6 21
Asset ID
This turned out to be the biggest 'win' of this portion of the
whole process. This step got us to a little over a dozen missing
units. We even visited the technician's work areas. We
discovered old machines and other bits and pieces stashed
away. We marked all of these units as 'stored' rather then
'deployed'. We were now into single digits! The last step I
took actually caused a few raised eyebrows in the network
sector! I did a Google desktop search for these last few
missing items. I searched the email archives as well as on the
network storage array. I STRONGLY suggest thinking about
this one before you try it yourself. There are not only privacy
and security issues involved but you do have a chance of
creating a LOT of network traffic. Sure enough, I found email
messages that a couple of units had gone with employees no
longer with the company and one item (a printer) had been
lent by the marketing team to a publicist in New York.
Mission Accomplished
Our project was now complete. Of the nearly 6100 original
items we had narrowed down missing items to about 7
devices. Luckily none of these were units of any value. We
could not find one ancient printer and six 15" monitors - all
items not worth researching further. We just wrote those off
and we were DONE. We had created a solid starting baseline,
ensuring future inventory changes would go against a known
accurate database. The data told us how many computers we
had enabling our support contract to be reduced. It also told us
what printers we had, so we could make smart decisions on
deployment, (as described in the other article mentioned
above). It told us the number of notebooks and desktops we
had so we could track risk and deployment. The most amazing
thing was the unexpected help it provided the data center
guys. Since they did not know what servers they had, their
locations, and their loaded software, the value of data we
provided was hard to quantify. We knew it would impact
backups, risk assessment of load balancing, contracts and
optimized usage, but placing a dollar value to that knowledge
was something we left to their group. The group’s manager
was extremely thankful for what we were able to provide. I
must say it was scary that they didn't already have that
information but this was a win we didn't even expect.
BTW . . . I won an award for the successful completion of
this project.
Ilan Justh
IT Asset Manager and
Software Licensing Expert
23. Volume 4 Issue 6 23
Install of machines
a. Is a trouble ticket needed to move assets?
b. What is the central tracking key for IT assets?
i. Desktops, laptops and monitors are easy.
What about servers where there are multiple
serial numbers inside a primary server rack?
Movement of machines
a. Need to track if a machine moves cost centers
b. Assigning a billing cost center to a machine –
will it be static? How do we change it? Do we
do it dynamic so that the cost center changes
every month to the primary user of the machine?
c. Does finance need a monthly spreadsheet to
show machines that had their billing cost center
moved?
d. Monitors – With a product like Altiris we can
track if a monitor moves from cost center to cost
center. Do we change cost centers it belongs to?
What about if a monitor moves cost center
groups and the 1st
cost group doesn’t know about
it. Do we notify the first cost center group? What
disciplinary actions do we take, if any, against
the person who took the monitor?
Ownership
a. Is ownership by user or cost center?
b. Is ownership assigned at install statically
c. Is ownership dynamically assigned to the
primary user of the machine?
i. This gives greater accuracy but will
involve frequent updates to be sent to the
finance system
Lease tracking
a. If we are leasing machine do we only bill the
monthly cost of the machine to the end user?
b. Warehouse machines – if leased do we continue
to bill the end business unit until the machine is
reassigned to a different user?
i. Do we assign a lease machine cost center
to the warehouse when it comes in from a
trouble ticket?
The goal for all asset managers is to manage all of our IT
assets. Lets think of all IT assets such as; desktops, laptops,
monitors, printers, servers, routers, switches, copiers, and
software. Inventory or asset tracking of network assets is very
easy to do with products like Altiris. By deploying such a
tool, it also assists the asset manager in attaining the ultimate
goal of management of all the stated IT assets.
Before we get to that desired state of tool implementation
and asset management though, we need to have procedures
and policies in place to support our goals of managing IT
assets.
Purchasing
Before we can start tracking assets we need to agree upon
what is going to be the key that all assets will have. That key
needs to stay the same throughout the whole asset tracking
process or tracking time will increase.
Questions to ask.
a. Is there a master number like a project
number, which will cover multiple
purchase orders?
b. Will there be one purchase order that
inventory purchases will be attached
to?
c. How will multiple invoices inside a
single PO be covered?
d. What keys will we need to attach serial
numbers to invoices, and then invoices
back to Purchase orders.
If purchases are across multiple states, what will the
state of ownership be for the resident states or where
the IT assets are purchased?
a. If machines are resident in the state
does property tax need to be tracked?
b. How does inventory data showing
machines moving across state lines get
back to the finance system?
Hardware tracking.
Most questions apply to purchase and leased IT assets. A
few questions are leasing specific.
Invoice Reconciliation Leads to Savings
In The Beginning
Policy Management
24. 24 Volume 4 Issue 6
$
$
$
Purchasing
Local
Inventory
Logistics
Receives Order
Ship to
local site.
Instock at
Warehouse
Vendor
Receives and ships
order
End User
Install
Tech
Install
$
VISIO CORPORATION
Finance
Receives Monthly
Billing
Altiris
Database
Finance DB
Tech Assigns
Billing
Cost Center
Altiris Notifies
Local IT that WS
90 days from End of
Warreny
IT installs new machine
and removes old system.
Old machine awaiting pickup
Warehouse manages
PU of old retired machines
Disposal Vendor PU's old machines
and send report what picked up
Altiris reconciles disposal
to what was in field. Report send to finance
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Order of New
Systems based on machines
out of warrenty in altiris
y
y
Policy Management
25. Volume 4 Issue 6 25
another users workstation
v. Kaza, other music sharing
websites.
2. Pirated software- how do we handle software
that is installed without a license.
a. What groups are responsible for
ensuring that every piece of software in
the company has a license?
i. How are paper PO’s and
shrink-wrap software tracked?
Is there a policy for software
that is purchased locally, to be
reported to the central
repository for software
licenses?
b. Where is the central repository for
software licenses?
3. Reclaiming software not being used.
a. A good tool will tell you when the last
time software was used.
i. For how long has it not been
C. Leasing needs to track if a machine moves from
cost center to a different cost center. We will need
policies to let us know how finance wants to
handle this.
Stolen
a. Stolen machines, if purchased, do we simply
note them in the database as stolen? Making sure
they had the correct encryption on them. Do we
send a report to local police?
b. Stolen machines leased - how do we notify the
vendor that a machine has been stolen. What
marking do we put in the database for our own
internal tracking? Will we buy out stolen
machines off the lease at the time that it is
stolen? Will we just note stolen machines in the
lease database and let them run out to the end of
the contract and buy them out then?
c. Stolen machines – what auto detection tools do
will have for internal or internet to scan for these
machines.
Disposal
a. Do all computer workstations need to have the
hard drive wiped?
i. Internal by employees or external
vendor?
b. Donate end of life machines (EOL)?
c. Use an external vendor to pick up EOL
machines?
d. User internal employees to ship EOL machines
to a central location?
e. How much space will this require?
f. How to get all disposal records to Finance to
ensure IT assets are written off the books
correctly
Software Tracking
Inventory tools like Altiris can track software loaded on a
workstation. They can also track if that software is being used.
The question becomes, how do we manage our software
licenses to avoid fines from vendors? Also how many copies
installed on workstations are being used? If they are not being
used do we want to reclaim them?
Policy issues raised as noted below by software tracking
that need to be address by management may include:
1. Pirated software - how much discipline should
be done to an employee for having pirated
software on their company owned workstation?
a. What classifies as pirate software?
i. Freeware?
ii. Music MP3’s
iii. Movies AVI’s, MPEGs, etc
iv. Business software copied from
Policy Management
26. 26 Volume 4 Issue 6
used? Some software is only
used at certain times of the
year such as tax software.
b. If you remove software from a client,
how fast can you redeploy it to another
end user?
Off-Line Tracking
How are all the off-line assets going to be tracked?
1. Barcode scanning
a. Is a built in module going to be
purchased?
b. Once a product is purchased, training
needs to happen to all users of the
barcode product.
c. How does the barcode product integrate
with the primary asset database? Will
custom forwarding and schedules have
to be written? Internally who will
support this?
d. Wireless or wired barcode scanning.
What security standards are needed for
wireless communication between
scanners and host computer?
2. RFID scanning
a. RFID has limitations on range. The
smaller the RFID tag the closer the
RFID scanner has to be to the RFID
tag.
b. What encryption does the RFID come
with? Early versions of RFID have
been shown to have security concerns.
c. Cost of RFID scanners can run up to
$5000 per handheld scanner and
$20,000 for door scanners.
3. Manual tracking
a. Logistics workers manually write down
serial numbers and asset tags and enter
them into database. This process can be
wrought with error and very inaccurate
but many companies still track their
assets in this way.
b. Need to acknowledge up front a 5%-
10% error rate
High Level View
The preceding questions and items are things that need be
planned for before the mechanics of asset tracking can be
solved. If asset tracking systems are put into action and a
master plan is not adhered to, several resulting conditions can
occur.
• Assets can go missing because there will be no
authority for a logistics group to have business
groups turn in abandoned assets.
• Software license counts can also stray into large
unlicensed numbers if users are allowed to
install any software without proof that they own
it.
• Hardware warranties can run out and cost
incurred to fix machines
This concludes Part 1 of this series. Part 2 will delve into
the mechanics of how Asset management can be done using
the Altiris and SAP products.
Shawn Mayhew
Software Asset Manager
CAISO
Policy Management
28. 28 Volume 4 Issue 6
Program Management
At the core of every task is relevant data. To effectively
plan, execute, and report on critical business activities you
need quick and effective access to the right key facts.
This is a challenge for any business manager, but is
especially difficult for IT asset managers where key asset data
is spread across multiple applications, departments,
disciplines, and sources. The IT asset manager needs to
aggregate, analyze, and act on data from Purchasing, Finance,
IT, Service Desk, Facilities, Security, Operations, Human
Resources and others, and may be pulling data from
spreadsheets, expert financial systems, word processing
documents, PDFs, drawing or modeling tools, and even
handwritten notes.
That’s a vast and complex stew of data, and attempting to
order that data is a daunting task. The key is to start with a
few key facts for each asset and to work forward from there,
expanding as needed from a strong foundation.
I call it the KOALA factor—Key costs, Ownership,
Accountability, Lifecycle status, and Assignment. If you can
track these core facts for your IT assets, you can provide at
least a rudimentary response to the vast majority of the
planning, compliance, and procurement tasks in the short
term, and that data can give you the foundations for extended
service delivery and support (CMDB) going forward.
• Key costs—acquisition, maintenance, and replacement/
retirement. This is the most time and effort-intensive
element of IT asset management, and will require the
most resources to implement.
◊ Track initial acquisition costs, including asset
purchase, required peripheral or supporting
devices, operating system and software (as
needed), and service contracts.
Most of this data will come from purchase
orders; some will need to be calculated as a pro-
rata share of a bulk purchase or license
agreement.
For new purchases, update your purchasing
process to include calculating and tracking this
data in your asset record; for existing assets you
will need to create a project to go back and
aggregate/calculate this information and add it to
your asset records.
◊ Track ongoing maintenance costs, including
annual service contracts, upgrade or replacement
parts, and the costs associated with Service Desk
incidents for each device.
Ideally, this information is collected at the
time of purchase/service and is immediately
attached to the asset’s service history record as a
function of your established process. You should
update your Incident management process to
support this, whether you update the asset record
manually or through automated technology.
This can be the single most daunting task in
the mix—extracting and aggregating historical
data for existing assets is a gargantuan task.
Many organizations choose to simply start
tracking this data as of a specific date and leave
existing data unstructured. This is a good
method for those organizations that are resource
constrained and willing to wait for highly
qualified data.
◊ Identify replacement costs for hardware,
software, and infrastructure elements.
Remember to include both disposal costs for
existing assets and install/deployment costs for
new assets.
For commodity items such as end user
hardware (desktop, laptop) and software, these
costs should be predictable within a range and
will tend to be updated once a year as new
contracts are negotiated.
For high-impact or high-value items the cost
A Pragmatist’s Guide to Structuring IT Asset Data
The KOALA Factor
29. Volume 4 Issue 6 29
of purchase may only be a small part of the total
costs, and those costs may be difficult to
estimate. This data is intended for planning
purposes and should be reviewed at the time of
planning, so supply a best estimate with
supporting documentation to be used as a
starting point for further research, not as an
authoritative declaration.
The key benefit here is being able to quickly view
approximate costs for individual assets, to aggregate that
data by department or cost center, and to use that data in
research and planning efforts.
These key costs are supplemental to the detailed cost
accounting performed by the Finance team, and are
intended to inform purchase, resource, and budget
planning—not to provide detailed cost data to financial
auditors. Understanding this intended use for IT asset cost
data will help you reduce the complexity of your asset
repository and keep expectations clear.
• Ownership—whose books carry the costs; usually a
department or cost center as opposed to an individual or a
signing manager. For shared or infrastructure assets there
may be more than one owner, with a percentage of
ownership assigned to different departments.
The primary goal for this ownership data is to enable
simple accountability for an asset’s use in providing value
to the organization, to support approvals and decision
making processes, and to enable simple cost aggregation
for planning and budgeting purposes.
In conjunction with Accountability data, Ownership
enables IT asset managers to support both compliance
audit and strategic planning efforts by providing easy
lookup of the high level group an asset belongs to. This
also supports internal change control and provides insight
for change advisory board membership for critical IT
assets.
• Accountability—who is responsible to ensure that the
asset is functional and providing the value for which it
was purchased.
For infrastructure elements, there will typically be
several accountable people. For example, a database
server might include the following accountabilities
depending on functional role:
◊ Device maintenance—IT administrator(s)
responsible for the physical maintenance of the
server hardware. This person may also be
responsible to configure that server with the core
database application.
◊ DBA—one or more people responsible to
create and maintain the actual databases. This
might include access control, table creation and
maintenance, software updates, and general
database engine maintenance.
◊ Data owners—the individual contributors
responsible to ensure that each database contains
the right information for their respective
purposes.
◊ Continuity/Disaster recovery—person
responsible to ensure that database files are
backed up and a plan is in place to restore or
recover from unexpected loss.
The goal here is to provide quick and easy lookup of
accountable people for both audit and business
management purposes. Simple analysis enables asset
managers to identify gaps in coverage and ensure input to
asset decisions by key stakeholders.
For end user devices or software, there may only be a
single IT accountability role - or the assignee and the
accountable person may be the same. The goal here is
flexibility to track any and all people who may be
accountable for content, configuration, or maintenance of
the asset.
• Lifecycle status—where in its functional lifecycle a
particular asset is at the moment, and whether it’s capable
of providing its intended value. This is the foundation
datum for reconciling the asset’s planned use versus
actual use.
Oddly, this is both the most important and the most
neglected asset data point. If you know the current
lifecycle state of an asset at any moment in time you can
intelligently plan IT update/replacement, budget, IMAC
(install, move, add, change), and procurement activities.
For example, if you know that an asset is available but
not assigned, you can manage internal stores and plan
inventory levels—or identify key assets that are not
providing direct value. If you know as asset is ordered but
not received, you may need to track a shipment status. If
you know that an asset is retired, you can begin physical
recovery and disposal activities.
Program Management
30. 30 Volume 4 Issue 6
• Assignment—who physically possesses the asset.
This is distinctly different from ownership (financial
burden) or accountability (who answers for asset
integrity). Assignment tracks the actual possession—and
presumable use—of the asset.
As obvious as this seems, many organizations can’t
physically verify either the presence or use of many key
assets. In conjunction with lifecycle status, assignment
data gives the organization the information needed to
physically account for critical assets and ensure effective
use.
For active commodity assets accountability and
assignment may be to the same person. For active service
or network infrastructure assets they will tend to be
different. For inactive assets accountability may be the
asset team and assignment may be a store room. Having
the data to physically locate an asset closes the loop on
accountability and many regulatory requirements.
The key issue here is to resist the urge to track too much
asset information.
Starting with the Koala factor will provide the core data
most organizations need to demonstrate immediate and
significant value to both IT and the business. Start small and
track a few key elements, then expand asset data only to meet
specific needs tied to specific accountabilities.
That will help tame the vast stew of available data and
make is specifically and pragmatically useful.
Scott Parkin
VP of Information Technology
Avocent LANDesk
Program Management
