A beginning to end solution for
site licencing on campus
Bo Wandschneider
University of Guelph
bo@uoguelph.ca
OUCC – Windsor – 2004
1
05/18/04
Objective



2
Give you an understanding of the solutions we have
put in place, through a description of our situation,
the needs of our community and the tools/services
we have implemented to meet these needs.
Hopefully you can relate some of this to your own
environments and use this to assist your work.
Maybe there are some opportunities for
collaboration amongst institutions.
05/18/04
Outline
•
Background
•
Overall picture
What was already in place
Problems
•
Solving a problem and opening opportunities
•
Getting buy-in and designing a framework
•
What sort of agreements can we now consider
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
E-academy
Setting Campus Policies for Site Licencing
Leveraging our Software Distribution Site
Where are we going
05/18/04
Background – Overall Picture

UoG did not have many ‘institutional’ site licences
–
–




4
especially in the area of Desktop Software
not a good knowledge of what was out there on campus
CCS was not in the business of selling and
distributing software
We had no computer store
We had no good distribution point
Purchasing had not pursued much in the area of
software
05/18/04
Background – Overall Picture



User community looked to CCS to provide site
licencing solutions
Received many requests for various products
Was not clear how we could deal with these
requests in terms of:
–
–
–

5
funding
distribution
general management
Any solutions would use more resources than we had
05/18/04
Background – What We Had


Academic Services provided Data Analysis Support
History of managing statistical licences like SAS
and SPSS - both individually and centrally
–

Managed central licences, such as TSP, Shazam,
Limdep
–

6
Had partial cost recovery model for desktop version
Owned by others
Had Statistical Advisory Committee to offer
guidance
05/18/04
Background – What We Had





7
We had a help desk staffed by students to
manage distribution
Kept inventory and cash at this desk
Students issued receipts and reconciled as
needed
Created a cold-fusion app to inventory
software
Sent CD's out to be burned
05/18/04
Background - Problems

Funding
–



8
Budget is limited
Demands are diverse
Demands change
Hard to stop funding/support to adapt to
changes in research and teaching priorities
05/18/04
Background - Problems

Dissemination and record keeping
–
–
–
–
–

9
Not our business
Students weren’t always reliable
We don't have a store
Lending CD's problematic
No good tools for burning CD's
No way of enforcement
05/18/04
E-academy – What Is It



10
Canadian Company, based in Ottawa
Focused on post secondary market
“e-academy provides products, services and
technology to simplify the way software
licensing programs are managed and software
is distributed for the benefit of all
stakeholders in educational environments“
05/18/04
E-academy – What Is It

Provides a software distribution system - ELMS
–
–
–
–
–
–
Allows “campus IT managers to maximize reach and enduser convenience while reducing operational costs and
ensuring licensing compliance.”
Life-cycle management of Software Licensing Programs
Scalable
End-to-End Supply Chain Integration
Customer specific policies, prices and branding
Good return on investment

11
Can be self funding
05/18/04
ELMS – Problems Solved
ELMS allows UoG to:










12
Authenticate by roles
Track licences
Manage licence keys
Practice a variety of cost recovery models
Manage inventories and online transaction reporting
Notify users of updates
Assign departmental level managers of licences
Have different delivery models
Offer 7x24 service
Be more effective in preventing copyright violations
05/18/04
ELMS – UofG Implementation


Integrated authentication to our central
directory (LDAP)
Determined roles we want
–

We create ‘offers’
–

13
Faculty, Staff, Students, Alumni …
Clients view, box shots, instructions, prices
Software stored at UofG
05/18/04
Elms – UofG Implementation

Offered Stats packages
–
–


Offered all our ‘free’ software and
redistributions
Encourage direct download
–
14
SAS, SPSS, Maple, Stata…
Partial Cost recovery
Not everything is suitable - SAS
05/18/04
Elms – UofG Implementation

Charge for media
–
–
–
–

Wrap commercial software
–

Limited to 2 downloads
Left others open with multiple downloads
–
15
We maintain inventory (burn CD’s in house)
We get email if media ordered
Client brings receipt they print off
Pick-up in mornings only
Easier for network admins
05/18/04
ELMS – UofG Implementation
Integrated payments with:
–
Internal Express card


–
Internal Billing codes


–
We check validity locally
Monthly list of transactions that we post
Credit Card

16
We check card and validity locally, at time of
authentication and pass result on
Nightly ftp of transactions to Hospitality Server
MiraPay – we don’t handle this info
05/18/04
ELMS - Screen Shots
17
05/18/04
Elms - Login
18
05/18/04
ELMS - Software
19
05/18/04
ELMS – MS Example – 1of2
20
05/18/04
ELMS – MS Example – 2of2
21
05/18/04
ELMS – My Software page
22
05/18/04
ELMS – Administration Page
23
05/18/04
ELMS - Reporting
24
05/18/04
ELMS – Sales Summary
25
05/18/04
Site Licence Policies

ELMS system worked well
–
–

Felt comfortable we could now manage more
licences
–

both in quantity and type
ESRI products were in great demand
–
26
Easy to manage
Low cost
Required a solution – possibly a central solution
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – ESRI


Established an ESRI – SIG/committee based
on interested departments
Task was to:
–
–

27
determine demand
Find a funding/support model
Role this into a broader solution for Site
Licencing
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
After ESRI project done:
–
Established a task group under ISC

–
28
Information Services Committee
Representation from CCS, Purchasing, Library,
Faculty, OOL, TSS
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
Mandate
The Task Group will develop and recommend a
model for the campus site licensing of
software and data resources in support of
the teaching, learning, research and
administrative needs of the University. This
model will include the overall policy
framework for licensing, specific decision
making processes and procedural guidelines
29
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
30
Objectives:
 Develop an operational definition of the term “site
licensing” as it pertains to software and data
resources.
 Identify stakeholders and existing partners
(including other institutions) and ensure a
consultative process to identify needs, requirements
and to examine existing site license arrangements.
 Recommend the policies and procedures related to
software and data site-licenses that include
eligibility, selection criteria and decision making
processes.
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
Objectives:
 Recommend procedures to ongoing support that
includes software/data distribution, technical
support and training.
 Recommend appropriate funding and cost allocation
models that support optimal participation and
sustainability.
 Prepare a preliminary list of requested and potential
software and data site-licences.
31
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
Benefits
 Promotes centralized support and coordination of
licences
 Promotes baseline IT infrastructure
 Focuses limited resources
 Potential Savings
 Better access for individuals
 Assists in ensuring proper management and
allocation of licence
–
32
Reaffirms commitment to copyright laws
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Task Group
Outcomes
 Create a clearing house for software
–
–
–


Leverage the ELMS site to expand opportunities
Funding Models
–

33
Inventory, promote, facilitate and coordinate
Determine priorities
Investigate new opportunities
Central Service Provider/sponsor
Set of Criteria for considering licences
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Criteria



34
The software must be considered part of the Universities
infrastructure. This would, at minimum, suggest support of
research, teaching and/or administration. It will not be
sufficient for the package to support the research, teaching
or administrative needs of a specialized group or one
particular department. Ideally, demand should be spread
across several department and colleges or a significant number
of course should make use of the software. If this criteria is
not met, it may still be the case that a CSP will still pursue the
licence and use the SLCO as a clearing house.
There should already be a significant commitment to the use
of the software in existing applications. The acquisition of a
site licence may see the usage increase across the existing
user group as well as establish new communities of use.
The acquisition of a site licence should result in savings
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Criteria





35
Individuals may be financially constrained from acquiring the
software on their own.
The introduction of a site licence will open new opportunities
for these users.
The acquisition of a site licence will reaffirm the University’s
commitment to copyright laws.
A case needs to be made that failure to provide the software
would put the University of Guelph at a competitive
disadvantage with other Universities.
It is expected that the acquisition of the software will
significantly enhance the ability of the University to achieve
its teaching and research goals.
05/18/04
Site Licence Solution – Criteria


36
The software should be well established in the community, to
the point that anyone could use it to meet their needs. In
other words, personal preferences aside, the software is
comprehensive enough to perform the majority of work
required by the majority of users. This is not to exclude the
need for specialized software, but specialization would likely
not meet the above criteria
There needs to be a plan in place for support. The need for
in-depth technical expertise must also be addressed. This
could be offered centrally, such as with SAS and SPSS, or
could be offered in a more decentralized fashion or through
the vendor or even a third party.
05/18/04
Site Licencing – What We Have Now


Academic Services is Clearing House
Consult with ITSIG
–
–
–

Pursuing several options
–


37
Campus IT staff
They provide us with input on needs
Essential to make this work
MS Academic Select, Matlab, Adobe, Macromedia….
Building a reputation as who to talk to
Still long way to go figuring out what is out there
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site

Matlab
–
–
–
–
–
38
User pays up front licence
CCS carries maintenance
Use ELMS to push out licences and updates to
participants
Use ELMS to present offers to new participants
Monitor licences for concurrent model
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site
Stata
–
–
–
–
39
They ship us media up front
Elms controls inventory
We distribute media
Make payments to Stata
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site

Microsoft Academic Select
–
–
–
–
–
–
40
CCS negotiates price with LAR
One set of media provided to CCS
Present offers on ELMS site
Clients pay full cost of licences
We reconcile monthly with LAR
Fee if they want media
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site

Microsoft Student Select
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
41
CCS negotiates with LAR
MS insist no downloads – must distribute media
E-academy handles the whole process
Looks like one of our offers
Uses their merchant account
They negotiate delivery of media
They reconcile all payments
Small transaction fee (incl. in price)
We just sit back 
California screen shot
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site
42
05/18/04
Leveraging our ELMS site
43
05/18/04
Where Are We Going

Add more licences
–
–


44
Macromedia
Adobe …
More departments managing software on
central site
Consider cross-university sites – think
California
05/18/04
Where Are We Going

Encourage E-academy to negotiate?
–
–
–
45
They have offers on their site
Encourage more vendors to use download as an
option and accept digital signatures
The key is the distribution system and
management tools
05/18/04
Live Demo or Questions?
46
05/18/04