View LISTSERV archives

ITPSM@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ITPSM Home

ITPSM Home

ITPSM  2003

ITPSM 2003

Subject:

Re: Unlimited Licenses and Pricing Models

From:

Jim Lesslie <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:07:00 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

At 10:36 AM 2003-03-03 -0600, you wrote:
>
>1.    If the license is centrally funded, as is the case for antivirus
>software for many of us, where does the subsidy money come from?
>>> we have a technology fee for students and part of this money covers
>centrally funded software such as antivirus, MS, etc.
>

Most of the centrally funded licenses are paid for from several buckets in
my department's budget, as allocated by the University. Associated with
these buckets are recovery minors where we put the money we recover for
individual or group licenses, and the budget "expects" this.

In the Province of Ontario, tuition and fees have historically been
regulated by the province, although in recent years the province has
permitted some professional programs like Medicine and Business to set
their own fees (deregulate). In some cases portions of the revenue from
higher, deregulated fees have been used to offset the costs of technology
required in that program. Generally, however, student technology fees have
been a no-no in Ontario, as the Province considers such a fee to be part of
the regular tuition and fees, which they regulate. Deregulation has been
the approach followed to overcome this and other cost challenges, and is a
very contentious issue among all stakeholders.

>2.    When you have an unlimited license and the product family being
>distributed is complex (such as a Windows product, a unix product, a
>10-pack, and a 25-user lab pack, for example) how do you determine the
>pricing for each of those products? Here at Penn we try to maintain the
>vendor's product bundles and scale down the price proportionately, but
>I'd like to know how others assign prices in such cases.
>>> it depends. We try to reduce the complexity of the vendor product
>where possible. And it depends upon ho wit is being paid for. When it is
>not centrally funded, I may still get a 'site license' if volume
>warrants it, but charge out by unit. Or it may be an uplift on unit
>cost. It just depends.

In my previous submission to this thread I acknowledged that at present we
don't really have a coherent model or formula for funding software
licenses, but I have set this as a goal to work toward during the next
12-24 months. As a result, I'd like to make a request of those monitoring
this list:
If your campus or department has a formal model and accompanying policy for
funding and distribution of software, does it exist in document form on
your web-site, and if so, could you point me to it?  I'd be very grateful.

>
>3.    When you have an unlimited license for a product and want to offer
>unlimited licenses to a school or department, how do you manage to
>equitably price the product?   If you charge a flat fee, wouldn't the
>smaller departments or schools always be at a disadvantage?
>>> We have even taken donations in one case where each entity decided
>what it could pay. That was a rarity though. Usually it is a best guess
>on volume versus a flat fee. It could be by head count, usage, flat fee
>or other.

There are several instances here at Queen's where several academic units
have sought matching funds from my department to establish a limited or
campus-wide license agreement. I am contemplating this as a component of
our software funding strategy or formula. It avoids the hassles of cost
recovery, but usually the software in question is of appeal to only a few
disciplines, not the entire campus.

We haven't gone the flat-fee approach for recoveries except in the case of
a lab, where we cap the fee regardless of size of the lab (most labs aren't
much bigger than 20 seats). The notion behind this is to increase
accessibility for students, who typically can least afford to buy their own
licenses/copies of many software titles.

Hope these thoughts are of some help to others.

... Jim

>
>Thanks for your feedback!
>Mary
>
>--
>-----------------
>Mary A. Griffin                    Office of Software Licensing
>University of Pennsylvania         Sansom Place West, Suite 302
>3650 Chestnut Street               Philadelphia, PA  19104-6107
>215-898-5930 (voice)               215-573-4021 (fax)
>-----------------
>
>**********
>Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
>Group discussion list can be found at
>http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.
>
>**********
>Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lesslie     Manager, Support Services
Information Technology Services,  Queen's University
Stauffer Library 11A      E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
Phone: (613) 533-2042     Fax: (613) 533-2168
-----------------------------------------------------------

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/memdir/cg/.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave ITPSM

Join or Leave ITPSM


Archives

2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2