< Back to LISTSERV archives

LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LICENSING Home

LICENSING Home

LICENSING  2001

LICENSING 2001

Subject:

Re: Campus Agreement 3.0: Clarification

From:

mknox {Marg Knox} <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:28:48 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

Teri,

I had the hospital item on my list of issues that I see on CA 3.0. In the
description of the CA program is a URL to who is eligible for what. That URL
is http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/eligible.asp

Down near the bottom we get to hospitals and another URL. The first time I
read it I missed that our med school hospitals are no longer eligible.
Fortunately one med school was sharper eyed than I.

We also find iPeds problematic (well it is with Oracle or MS or otherwise)
as Texas schools report to a higher education authority who collects
headcount. And stuff seems to get counted differently among schools (your
example of student workers is great). And data is old. And the iPeds site
throws me for a loop...

Regards,


marg

-----Original Message-----
From: Teri O'Rourke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Campus Agreement 3.0: Clarification


Thanks for your response.  I always enjoy talking with you about these
issues, so I don't think you presumptuous for entering the dialogue.

I would like to comment that I think it was a pretty big leap for Microsoft
to assume that university administrators would understand that we were
expected to report student employees.  My reasons are many and outlined
below.

First, in polling institutions on the Educause listserv I can tell you that
there were many different interpretations of whether or not, and how to
count student employees.

On the copies of IPEDS reports I've reviewed "Casual or Federally Funded
Work Study Student Employees" is not a reported category.  The
administrators in my institution confirmed for me that Student Employees are
not part of the IPEDS reporting.  Student Enrollment FTE is reported in
IPEDS, but not "student employees".

There was no specific language in the Campus Agreement 2 literature
discussing the concept that student employees were to be included, nor
clarifying that we were to include them in the Faculty and Staff FTE counts
if we did not contract for the student option.  Deborah Sanders claimed in
her email that Microsoft clarified this in the most recent revision of the
Campus Agreement 3 documents because they'd received so many questions about
this.

Students employees are very transient.   They may only work one term, and
most typically work 10 hours or less per week.  Many if not most may not use
a computer in performing their job duties, and therefore, by Microsoft
standards would not be considered to be knowledge workers, and by
Microsoft's guidelines may be excluded.  However, there is no easy or
accurate way to determine what the number of student employee knowledge
workers is.  For these reasons we do not believe there is a reasonable nor
accurate way to count them.  If Microsoft intended for us to report only
those reported in IPEDS, the numbers would only have included a few students
who also had a separate temporary employment contact with the institution,
because "Casual or Federally Funded Work Study" student employees are not
reported in the employment numbers sections of IPEDS.

If we must include student employee knowledge workers, we believe that they
should be calculated at .25 FTE not .5 and suggest that Microsoft better
define the guidelines for how to determine which ones to report in our
counts.

Finally, is Microsoft aware that IPEDS reporting is changing.  From talking
with the campus administrators who are responsible for gathering this data
at our institution, IPEDS was not submitted last year and will not be
submitted this year.  Apparently the official numbers are now included in
AAUP and EEOC reports.  If you look at the IPEDS web site the last year
reported is 1999.

I have one final question.  Somewhere in all of this correspondence, I
thought I remembered seeing something about university hospitals no longer
being eligible for Campus Agreement.  Unfortunately, I can't find the
reference.  Did I image this?

I don't have reseller pricing yet on the individual products, but at first
glance, it looks like the only people who might see an advantage in the new
ala carte method are those institutions that only use Office, OS and CAL's.
By pricing the program this way, I think you may really irritate your most
loyal group of customers who use all of your products.  If the pricing were
such that you could get all of the products for a price in the same range
(plus the 10% price increase) as we paid for CA2 then those who use less
than all of the products would pay less under CA3, and those who use all of
the products would pay about the same.  But as I said, my first glance tells
me that the opposite will be true, those who use fewer products will pay
about the same per FTE, but those who use all of the products will pay much
more.  So while Microsoft may say the ala carte method was developed in
response to customer feedback, I'd have to say that they have missed the
point, if by going to the ala carte method costs will increase over the 10%
for your most loyal group of customers.

I'm unclear on how work at home use piracy issues are any different for
applications like Frontpage, Project or Visual Studio compared to Office.
Sure I can see that there are a number of issues with the OS and never
really thought we'd implement distribution of the OS for home upgrade for
these reasons.  By restricting the right for us to distribute the
applications for work at home use, you have reduced the benefits of the
plan.

All of these issues taken into account, will certainly give me pause to
completely reevaluate CA3 and compare CA3 pricing to Select at our renewal
time.  I think this unfortunate as much effort went into the initial
evaluation and analysis, and we were feeling very positive about entering
into the agreement.  I think it a reasonable expectation for your Campus
Agreement customers to anticipate that from renewal to renewal of a lease
type of licensing arrangement like CA that changes in the plan would be
minor, such as a small price increase (within the 10% increase allowance),
and enhancements or new benefits.  In the 5 years that I've worked in Higher
Education, Microsoft has made 3 major changes in licensing plans.  We should
be able to have an expectation of consistency and the delivery of plan
options that will not wildly vary our costs from year to year.  I wish I
could see more benefits than losses, but in the end I feel that Microsoft
may have missed the mark once again in delivering a program to higher
education that truly meets our expectations and doesn't leave us with the
feeling that Microsoft has once again found a way to improve their revenue
picture.

As always, my hope is that you will able to escalate this feedback through
the proper channels at Microsoft.  Thanks as always for listening and trying
to respond to my questions and concerns.

>>> "Heidi Felker" <[log in to unmask]> 07/11/01 08:11AM >>>
Teri:

I came across correspondence on a list serve that you were involved in
and could not help but take note of some concerns about Campus Agreement
3.0.  I hope that I am not being rude or presumptuous for stepping in
and contacting you about this.  If I am, please forgive me.  I want to
try clarify a few specific issues that appear to be simple
misunderstandings.  Perhaps  I am wrong but here goes.....

First, Microsoft has no intention of "forcing" schools to subscribe to
Campus Agreement or any other subscription-based program for that
matter.  Has anyone heard rumors about Academic Select or Academic Open
going away?  If so, please let me know so I can make sure we immediately
put an end to such falsities.

Second, there have been no changes whatsoever between Campus Agreement
2.0 and Campus Agreement 3.0 in terms of licensing student employees.
Where is the impression that there has been coming from?  Microsoft has
always asked, and continues to ask, schools to count their full time and
part time knowledge workers.  For simplicity sake, we encourage schools
to just refer to their IPED forms for these numbers.  Alternatively,
there is a simple equation for performing the calculation which is
described on the public web site:

FTE counts are the numbers a school must report to the government as
represented in IPEDS form S. The count equals: full-time faculty +
part-time faculty divided by 3 + full-time staff + part-time staff
divided by 2. Example: A university has 2,000 full-time faculty, 3,000
part-time faculty, 1,000 full-time staff and 1,000 part-time staff. Its
entire FTE count equals: 2,000 +3,000/3 + 1,000 + 1,000/2 = 4,500 FTEs.

Next, I am attaching an estimated retail price list with information on
pricing per product.


 <<CA-SA 3_0 Pricing.htm>>

Finally, your are correct that work-at-home rights have been limited to
only Office and the Back Office CALs.  The decision to change this is
based on piracy concerns.  There is no ulterior motive.

I hope this helps clarify things.  I understand that there has been a
lot of "talk" out there about Microsoft's licensing changes.  Please
know that, despite what the press says, I for one am always interested
in open communication with our customers.  Who else will support what we
do every day?

Regards,
Heidi


Heidi Felker
Microsoft Corporation
Education Solutions Group
West Region
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Phone: (800) 426-9400 x 11776

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave LICENSING

Join or Leave LICENSING


Archives

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2