< 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:

Michelle Morelli <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:44:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Dear Heidi:

Thanks so much for the retail pricing.  But, again, Microsoft has missed the point.  The academic institutions are not concerned with retail pricing only academic pricing.  That is why we "bend over backwards" with your contracts and do our utmost to enforce these at our instituations.
Regards,

Michelle Morelli
Emory University
Atlanta, GA

Teri O'Rourke wrote:

> 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

--
Michelle A. Morelli
Technical Customer Support Specialist I
404.727.8225

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