An alternative to all these options was the possibility of licensing the software by "named user" versions. Rather than having an unlimited number of users supported by a processor or server licence, you could specify which users could access the software. This required some rather convoluted spreadsheet analysis to understand which was the most cost-effective. You had to calculate when the price of a number of named user licences exceeded the value point of acquiring a server or processor licence upfront.

I have heard all the arguments of why vendors have introduced this level of complexity to software pricing. I know that software suppliers have to recoup their significant investment in R&D. I understand that the big target area for many suppliers is small to medium business where the acceptable price point is much lower than for big business. However, surely a supplier should also acknowledge the difficulty that these pricing models cause their customers. It makes it very hard for a CIO to give their executive an accurate budget for any IT investment.

The time I spent on gathering software pricing I expect is replicated on a daily basis across Australia. This is all time that the CIO or their team could spend much more productively elsewhere. I suspect it makes the executive shake their head in bewilderment at how IT operates. Furthermore, I wonder if all this effort really helps the vendors themselves. It just makes it difficult for CIOs when I believe what most really want is a working partnership with their software supplier that is a doddle.

Peter Hind is a freelance consultant and commentator with nearly 25 years experience in the IT industry. He is co-author of The IT Manager's Survival Guide and ran the InTEP IS executive gatherings in Australia for over 10 years