Meeting Notes from 23rd September Roundtable and Next Actions

The first roundtable for the Campaign for Clear Licensing was held in Canary Wharf in London last month.

The roundtable included:

  • Twenty SAM professionals
  • Mostly large corporates including 6 FTSE 100 companies
  • Four government departments
  • Representatives from UK, Germany and the Netherlands

(The Campaign has also received considerable interest from the USA, I apologize to our US friends – we’re not ignoring you – please bear with us whilst we get things off the ground).

I have embedded the discussion document from our meeting below:

The document also includes a summary of the results of our industry consultation. We have distilled all the feedback into several key strategic objectives to drive the campaign forward.

Key Talking Points from the Roundtable:

  • A key deliverable of the Campaign is to provide a vehicle for organizations to discuss issues in private without repercussion. There are several obstacles to overcome here in terms of privacy, security and liability. A key part of our value proposition is to provide that sanctuary.
  • A key talking point was the requirement for sufficient authority within organizations to facilitate change. I.e. Software Publishers are unlikely to change their practices because of Software Asset Managers – but they are much more likely to if CIO’s talk to Software Publishers together with independent substantiated evidence.
  • A knowledgebase was discussed as a useful mechanism for the Campaign to share collective intelligence and experiences. Again, issues around privacy, security and liability need to be discussed.
  • It was generally agreed that whilst a key requirement is for end user customers to collaborate on their own – it was also recognized that all industry stakeholders have a role to play (Software buyers, software managers, resellers, consultants, publishers, auditors, SAM tool manufacturers, Service providers and so on).
  • The Campaign can provide a collective voice for Software Buyers to raise concerns over license programs and auditing without jeopardizing their broader relationship with suppliers – an opportunity to provide evidence based, balanced feedback to suppliers to improve working relationships.

Our Value Proposition in Summary

  • To provide a secure, independent forum for software buyers to discuss issues with software licensing, software audits and vendor management (in person and online).
  • To govern forums to ensure privacy and independence
  • To curate and generate useful content to help members with their daily work
  • To build evidence based arguments for positive change with proactive, constructive dialogue with software publishers.
  • To escalate and highlight bad practice for software publishers who don’t wish to engage in positive and constructive relationships.

Next Steps

  • To develop a 3-Year business plan
  • To continue to solicit industry feedback and build industry partnerships
  • To develop a membership offering (Which will initially include a calendar of workshops and knowledgebase).
  • To recruit a Board to govern our strategic direction and volunteers to help support the initiative.

Volunteers Required

The first piece of collaborative work will be the Software Audit Code of conduct – a high level outline of which is included in the presentation. If you would like to contribute towards this publication please get in touch (we welcome contributions from all stakeholders in the industry).

If you have any questions please contact me. Contact details.

My thanks to Rory Canavan, Glenn Thompson, Kylie Fowler and Martin Chalkley for helping pull all this together.

Thanks, Martin

4 thoughts on “Meeting Notes from 23rd September Roundtable and Next Actions”

  1. Interesting and good points. It like having flashbacks to what the DMTF and other ITAM companies were up against in the early to mid-1990’s from a Hardware perspective.
    No hardware standards or manageability or very little from a select view trying to provide value-add to the customers.
    The only way we were able to affect how system were built from a manageability was to get the dog to wag the tail versus the other way around.
    The software buyers must request in the bid to have standard contracts and SLA’s (we are seeing this a lot now in corporate America)and that the solution have a way to ease the pain of providing license compliance reports. The burden is then placed on the ISV or SLA provider. Not entirely on the client.

    Looking forward to the discussion in the Americas.

  2. Greetings Martin,

    Great work (excellent content, meeting notes and future direction) and I very much look forward to being a part of CCL!

    Best Regards – Jim

  3. Yes its very objective . Really good business model. But it needs to stay in line with agenda and not sound threat ful to product based companies . Ccl can also provide consultancy to choose right licensing model and assessment. Theres also requirement for licensing process to meet security stds and compliance. Happy to volunteer

Comments are closed.