Please report any problems to the Shared Tools Team at st-help@doit.wisc.edu    Broken Links? Missing Macros? WIKI Retiring Plugins
Child pages
  • SLiM Charter
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Shared Licensing Management Policy Stakeholders Team Charter (Second Draft)

Charter for
Shared Licensing Management
Policy Stakeholders Team (SLiM PST)
10/30/08 version (prioritized items under scope, adjusted membership.)
11/24/08 version (added a reference to SLiM Brainstorming Results.)

Type

Policy Stakeholders Team (PST), temporary

IT Policy Initiative

Selection and Funding of Shared Licenses (SLiM)
(https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/POLICY/SLiM)
There are no current campus-wide policies and procedures related to selection, management and funding of shared licenses, (other than general purchasing policies which apply to any software license.) Broader and more systematic input and coordination may be desirable. The institution may be able to reduce costs by making greater use of shared licensing.

Compelling Need

Software license management Issues related to software licensing are important because of fiscal constraints on departments and the institution as a whole.

Executive Coordination

Chief Information Officer (CIO)

Endorsement

TBD by CIO

Advisory Group

TBD by CIO

Sponsorship

Joanne Berg, Division of Enrollment Management
Ron Kraemer, Chief Information Officer

Stakeholders

See Appendix A

 

 

Deliverables

Report desired outcomes and implementation considerations to the CIO. Make recommendations for follow up initiatives. The team should report:

  • operational or technical goals to be accomplished, and related goals that appear to be out-of-scope.
  • a vision for what success might look like, including the hoped for impact on the institution.
  • the recommended mix of policies, guidelines, procedures, standards and principles, and the rationale for this mix.
  • significant operational or technical features that the implementation should include or exclude that would enhance the likelihood of success.
  • possible desirable or undesirable side-effects and how these might be enhanced or reduced by the implementation.

Scope
(in order of priority)

Focus on selection, management and funding of shared licenses, and make recommendations to the CIO for follow up initiatives:

  1. Explore the benefits of forming a user community and how a community might be created and maintained, and refer expansion of the community beyond the current team to follow up efforts.
  2. Identify the type of information to include in a software license inventory so it would be of assistance during selection, management and funding, and refer actual creation of a license inventory to follow up efforts.
  3. Consider ways that improved license management and contract admin would impact selection and funding, but refer implementation of improvements to follow up efforts.
  4. Describe how campus-level governance and the user community could interact to improve selection, management and funding, and refer creation of campus-level governance to follow up efforts.
  5. Consider what oppportunities to enhance selection, management and funding arise from different types of technical solutions, and refer in-depth work on technical solutions to follow up efforts.

 

See SLiM Brainstorming Results for more detail on what might be included under each of the above items.

Deferred issues

The PST should not address:

  • The actual purchasing process (which is governed by State law and UW-Madison administrative policy.)

Referred issues

Refer other issues to the CIO:

  • The team should note other significant issues that appear to be out-of-scope, and should forward these separately to the CIO so they may be addressed.

Other Issues

See Appendix A

 

 

Process

The PST is working within the context of the UW-Madison IT Policy Process. The process is outlined in Appendix B of the process recommendations. The team's methods of deliberation and resulting recommendations should be consistent with the Key Success Factors of the process:

  • Campus buy-in
    Inclusive and transparent process with good communications.
  • Appropriate review and revision
    Initial review must be broad and thorough. There must be on-going review and revision.
  • Practical implementation
    Well communicated, cost-effective and enforceable. Can be accomplished with the resources available for the purpose.

Assumptions

Assumed outcome:

  • The general assumption is that the initiative will result in guidelines, procedures, standards and principles for coordination of shared licenses among departments. There might not be a policy, per se, although the PST may recommend otherwise.

Constraints

The recommendations of the PST must be consistent with:

  • State or federal laws.
  • Applicable UW System or UW-Madison administrative policies.

Risks

Care should be taken to avoid:

  • Scope creep.
  • Too much time spent on deferred or referred issues.

Amendment

This charter may be amended in consultation with the sponsors:

  • The team should initially review the charter and consult with the sponsors regarding any recommended changes.
  • The team may consult with the sponsors regarding later amendment  of the deadlines, deliverables, team membership or other issues.

References

 

CIO

http://www.cio.wisc.edu/

IT Policy Plan

https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/POLICY/IT+Policy+Plan

IT Policy Process

https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/POLICY/IT+Policy+Process

IT Policy Wiki

https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/display/POLICY/Home

UW-Madison Purchasing Services

http://www.bussvc.wisc.edu/purch/purch.html

UW-Madison Purchasing Policies and Procedures

http://www.bussvc.wisc.edu/purch/policyindex.html

Search UW-Madison for "Software License"

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/univwisc?q=%22software+license%22

Search UW-Madison for "Software Licensing"

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/univwisc?q=%22software+licensing%22

Members

Unit

Dana Bunner

DoIT

Judy Caruso

CIO Office

Kevin Cherek

AIMS

Gary De Clute

CIO Office

Carl Hubbard

Purchasing

Brian Kishter

DoIT Product Mgt.

Yvonne Nagel

Math

Cathy O'Bryan

DoIT Help Desk

Paul Oliphant

Engineering

John Perkins

Computer Science

Phil Saunders

Registrars Office

Jeffrey Shokler

Honor's Program, L&S

John Staley

DoIT Info Labs

Lori Voss

Purchasing

David Waugh

Libraries

Beth Wiebusch

Business School

CC:

Unit

Mike Hardiman

Purchasing

Rob Kohlhep

Engineering

Appendix A. Input from 2/4/08 IT Policy Forum

Stakeholders

From 2/4 IT Policy Forum:
Stakeholders might include (in no particular order):

  • IT Support Staff
    • Methods of installation/imaging
    • Tracking licenses
  • End Users
    • Tracking licenses by type of usage
  • Any Financial Decision Makers
    • Managers, P.I.'s, all staff interested in controlling costs
  • Legal Staff
    • Reduce risk of license violations
  • Inventory/Compliance Staff
    • Tracking Licenses
  • DoIT Tech Store/WISC
    • Sales
    • Possibly tracking licenses
    • Awareness of distribution patterns and changing needs
  • Campus Purchasing, DoIT delegated purchasing/unit purchasing/CIO
    • Identify the need to make single purchase vs. group
    • Review of purchasing records
    • Negotiate site license
  • Facilities & Space Management
    • Space to store media
  • InfoLabs
    • License distribution
    • License tracking
    • Methods of installation/imaging
    • Determining and licensing costs reflect actual need for concurrent users
  • Database Folks
    • High quality centralized system for helping people across the campus to manage/track their licenses, available software that is easy to access, update, maintain. This system should enable campus to identify what software should have a site license.
  • Vendors/Sales

Issues

From 2/4 IT Policy Forum: (in no particular order):

  • How can we best position UW Madison to take advantage licensing options for software purchases?

    A centralized source is needed that can provide the following:
    1. Identify existing licenses that are available and their scope. 'Site' can be defined very differently within agreements.
    2. Disseminate the extent of existing licenses on software.
    3. Decide where to consolidate, upgrade, maintain or reduce the scope of that licensing.
    4. Systemically communicate with stakeholders regarding their needs for software licensing, the type of license distribution methods that work best in their environment, amount & context of licensing needed.
    5. Identify and coordinate renewal dates on campus licenses to make it easier to administrate and where appropriate consolidate the licensing.
    6. Coordinate stakeholder needs to find economies of scale when appropriate. Analyze requests, current licenses and changes in vendor distribution methods for patterns.
  • Key Comments of note:
    1. "I have site licenses that more than likely other folks can take advantage of under their current terms, but I don't have time to communicate or investigate this possibility."
    2. "The type of licenses and their distribution limitations make it difficult to use them fully. Tethered licenses or concurrent licenses would be preferable, but within my own group I don't have the leverage with the vendors to make this happen."
    3. "We need a one-stop source for information on software licensing."
    4. "Site licensing is a service that helps me to reduce my costs. If I can't get to the information on existing licenses for my unit then I can't provide resources needed for instruction effectively, efficiently and mitigate the risk of non-compliance. "
    5. "It would be beneficial for our institution to approach site licensing as providing a service to campus constituencies, rather than as a means of mandating the use of particular software programs/packages. A service approach would likely lead toward high buy-in across campus, thereby reducing costs at multiple levels/scales."

Contact

  • No labels