The Business Software Alliance (BSA.org ) recently published the latest in their series of sponsored studies of the impact of software piracy on global economies. Interestingly enough, in the last few years, these IDC (IDC.com ) studies have quietly changed their stripes from how horribly software piracy was impacting the copyright holders to the (what many consider as a highly dubious) documentation of the "global economic impact" of software piracy.
I have always had difficulties with these enforcement industry sponsored studies--most especially when there are so few solid details available regarding how the numbers were genuinely acquired. Read on for my commentary on this latest release as posted on the cNet News web site.
|
|
We have found that, more often than
not, the published costs of a software piracy audit generally have
very little to do with the actual financial impact of the non
compliance (piracy) confrontation. In our training programs for
software asset management and software & copyright compliance
assurance we work through actual audit scenarios to show how multiple
hidden costs can add up to as much as 3 to 6 times--sometimes even more--the published
fine. What's more, in our experience, fewer than ten percent of
the literally hundreds of copyright violation audits are ever even made public. The end result? The actual economic impact of these predatory audits has been hidden from the public eye for decades.
Read on for
more details.
|
|
Steven Bandrowczak, the Nortel CIO,
wants to reduce his software application portfolio from 1,100
titles down to 100 over an 18 month period. (Read
Andy McCue's ZDNet/Asia article.) According to Bandrowczak, "When
I came we had a lot of projects not necessarily 100 per cent aligned
to key initiatives.” When it comes to software asset management,
we have found that a majority of companies could benefit from some
serious licensing, support, and maintenance house-cleaning.
Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen until we take a good look at
changing the status quo.
If you could reduce the costs of IT assets while continuing to deliver the same-or even better-services, would you take action? Read on to discover some of the key reasons technology asset management and portfolio management initiatives fail--or, even better, succeed.
|
|
Let's See: Dell is eliminating 8,000+ North American employees in an effort to cut costs and increase shareholder revenue. Most of the newly unemployed are from the U.S. but there are many Canadians in this unfortunate group.
What will it be? Maybe we should tell it like it is: Last week, over 8,000 people lost their jobs, their futures, their happiness. The children of as many as 8,000 employees will learn a valuable life lesson from this event.
These conveniently ghostly figures also mean that as many as 8,000 family members are now scrambling to find new jobs--yes I mean simply JOBS--because these folks certainly won't have the creditor grace period to re-establish their careers--so they can continue paying their bills. How many of these people are highly experienced and well qualified? Having met a large number of Austin, TX employees of Dell while delivering instructional programs there, I would guess that these folks are excellent representatives of the American technology work force.
In the coming months, how many of these key American and Canadian technology workers will be forced to take whatever job comes along--or face losing everything they worked so hard to accomplish for their families?
Here's The Rub: I'm sure you will join me in questioning Dell's attitude--if not financially--then socially and ethically. Did these same workers essentially build the company that enables Dell to deal on the international level? Is this the way employees are rewarded for their dedication to the company? More interestingly, is this the habitual way that our corporations are learning to deal with enhancing the bottom line?
For Instance: In what ways does Dell contribute to our
economy by removing all these people from the tax base? Is this by any
chance the same Dell that pledged to spend $70 million on Chinese
hardware across 2008?
One Might Ask: Would this also be the same Dell that spends
around $60 million in executive salaries and perks. In precisely what ways have those of you Enron-wanna-bees served your enterprise at that level of compensation--other than cruising the world in the corporate Lear?
As for Dell: If it weren't for the talent that helped you grow that enterprise, the enterprise is not going anyplace. Companies in the position of Dell might want to keep in mind that these folks you recently disposed of, their families, and everyone they know are also your customers--for now. Realistically, any boost in your share price is most likely going to be directly impacted by these former employees. Don't be surprised if they no longer purchase your products.
By your examples, precisely what are you teaching our kids?
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
|
| Results 1 - 7 of 31 |
