Tag Archives: ISV

How Can We Energize Our Emerging zCommunity?

Posted on by

No doubt we have all experienced that most things in life and business are cyclical, hence the terms déjà vu, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, et al…

For System z, with the glass half-full, there are encouraging signs of pragmatic and collaborative executive leadership from the supplier ecosystem; for example, BMC, Compuware and IBM collaborating on a Standard Software Product Install Methodology For All Vendors. With the glass half-empty, even though there are proven statistics to demonstrate the penetration of System z in global large organizations, there are still some misplaced legacy perceptions associated with System z, from significant executive leaders.

Just as the IBM Mainframe automated business processes more than several decades ago, introducing IT into the business workplace forever more, we’re currently undergoing another IT revolution. Quite simply, an exponential growth in data, typically associated with Cloud, Analytic, Mobile & Social technologies. With this in mind, we should always be mindful that an IT solution should solve a business challenge and/or provide value for a business requirement. Therefore, the business themselves are best placed to articulate the framework and ultimate size and shape of solutions delivered by the vendor community.

The IBM Mainframe environment has always benefitted from User Groups that conceptually represent the customer, articulating requirements to IBM for future IBM Mainframe enhancement. For the avoidance of doubt, SHARE in The USA, celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2015, with SHARE Europe, the forerunner to GSE, being founded in 1959. These groups are the ideal forums for collecting and articulating user requirements to IBM, for IBM Mainframe and current System z evolution. Without doubt, there has been a resurgence in support for SHARE USA and GSE events in the last decade or so, but from a dispassionate viewpoint, how many IBM Mainframe customers are members of these User Groups?

As previously referenced, the executive leadership of major System z Mainframe vendors are demonstrating a willingness to collaborate. Perhaps now is an ideal time for the System z Mainframe customer to articulate their requirements to the major System z Mainframe vendors?

My admiration for those volunteers that contribute their time, knowledge and passion to User Groups such as SHARE and GSE is without doubt. I’m also positive that these User Groups would welcome the opportunity to represent a larger number of System z end users, which would no doubt generate more end user presentations at conferences, supplemented by generic and business orientated user requirements for System z ecosystem vendors to consider. This can only happen if the end users of the IBM System z Mainframe platform embrace this opportunity to shape the future of the System z Mainframe, as it rapidly evolves, both in technological advancement and an emerging willingness for collaboration from vendors.

Having worked with IBM Mainframes for over 30 years, I’m no longer surprised about the quality and professionalism of personnel I encounter at user sites. A granularity of knowledge can sometimes be applied, with all-rounders demonstrating savvy technical and commercial knowledge at small capacity installations and Subject Matter Experts (SME), typically in larger capacity installations, demonstrating level 3 diagnostic capability. In an ideal world, the executive leadership at these System z Mainframe user sites should also participate in a forum of like-minded peers, allowing them to embrace and value the System z platform. There are certainly such Senior Management streams at SHARE and GSE events, but once again, if the System z end user isn’t a User Group member and/or doesn’t attend these events…

In our real life domestic environments, we can lobby our local government official (Member Of Congress/Parliament, MC/MP, et al), allowing for generic or specific representation for all people alike. In theory, in an evolving IT world, there is no reason why a System z Mainframe user can’t lobby a vendor for a user requirement. As always, no one of us, is as good as all of us! Therefore just as System z Mainframe vendors are collaborating, as and when practicable, now is the time for the System z Mainframe end users to collaborate, no matter how large or small, for the benefit of all. Given that the forums for collaboration already exist, for example SHARE USA and GSE, System z end users can easily leverage from these User Groups, to generate a coherent and notable voice.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if 80%+ of System z Mainframe end users were User Group (E.g. SHARE, GSE) members and several of their technicians and one senior manager attended their local annual conference? The cost, minimal, the value, arguably priceless!

From my own viewpoint, I have recent real-life experience of engaging a major System z vendor, with a commercial user requirement collected from tens of smaller capacity Mainframe users, where said submission is being considered. This is perhaps a brave new world…

IBM Mainframe – Enterprise Software License Agreements Pros & Cons

Posted on by

An often quoted phrase in the Mainframe user base is “why are our Mainframe software costs so high”?  Sometimes we might have to look closer to home when finding the answers to our questions…

Over the years, Mainframe software portfolios in the customer environment might have become unwieldy, with duplication of software function, unused software, unsupported software products, and so on.  Typically this scenario occurs due to Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activity, where in an ideal world, a standard LPAR (image) with an optimally configured software portfolio would be deployed, which inevitably will generate the requirement for a modicum of migration activity, from one software product to another.  The complexity of software migration can change dramatically from a simple change, generally associated with Systems Management (E.g. Monitors) products to enormously complex, generally involving Database Subsystems (E.g. Adabas, DB2, IDMS, et al) and Programming Languages (E.g. COBOL, PLI, et al) while there is some middle ground with some Systems Management products (E.g. Security, Storage, Scheduling) that maintain metadata (policy data).  Therefore only the truly committed Mainframe user will adopt and fully commit to this standard LPAR methodology, benefitting to some extent from lower software costs.

Similarly over the last 20 years or so, the perceived requirement for Enterprise Software License Agreements has increased, where the fundamental premise is that such agreements make life easier for both the customer and ISV alike.  An interesting notion indeed, and one must draw one’s own conclusions as to whether such a utopia can exist; therefore as always, the caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) term must apply!

However, with such fully encompassing requirements and associated pricing mechanisms, the need for each and every major ISV to have a fully rounded software portfolio has ensued.  Therefore we have witnessed a lot of M&A activity in the Mainframe ISV market place, where several dominant players have emerged, in no particular order, BMC (Advantage), CA (FlexSelect, MLP, OLP) and IBM (ESSO, ELA), while some might say ASG should be included in this list.  Generally it seems to be the norm that each and every Mainframe customer will have at least one Enterprise Software License Agreement in place, typically with IBM because of the need to deploy the z/OS (z/VM, z/VSE, zLinux) operating system, generally in conjunction one other, whether ASG, BMC or CA.

The advantages of an Enterprise Software License Agreement are primarily:

  • Simplified license management via many products from one supplier
  • A several (3-5) year license agreement, only requiring periodic review and negotiation
  • Perceived cost benefit, with discount based upon volume, both in terms of software and CPU power
  • Perceived deployment benefit, treating Distributed and Mainframe platforms equally
  • Simplified support, as each and every software product should have the same look and feel

However, for a balanced review, we must identify the potential disadvantages, for example:

  • Is each and every software product from this single supplier the best for our business?
  • How do we renegotiate this agreement, because our business requirements have unexpectedly changed?
  • How do we exit this agreement, because our relationship with this supplier has failed?
  • How do we calculate a tangible cost and value for each and every product we deploy?

As always, the devil is in the detail, and although most pros and cons seem fairly innocuous at first glance, the considerations generated regarding contract termination or renegotiation are significant.  For example, if the Mainframe user chooses a 3 year Enterprise Software License Agreement, do they need to decide at least 18 Months before contract expiration that they must migrate to alternative software products, to terminate their relationship with a supplier?  So at first glance, volume discount and simplification look good, but how expensive and disruptive will contract termination be?

In real-life human terms, this is somewhat analogous to Marriage, a long-term relationship between two parties that choose to declare significant commitment to one another, but perhaps, the realm of possibility exists that said relationship will fail, and of course, in the absence of a bulletproof pre-nuptial, complications occur, and exit from the relationship is both financially expensive and disruptive.  Hmmm, so where is the equivalent of a pre-nuptial for the Enterprise Software License Agreement?  In an ideal world, the commercially savvy customer will have planned for such a possibility, but whether they have or have not, the supplier will have been paid for their software, and the customer may not have any choice but to renew or extend their agreement!  So which party is the winner and which one is the loser in such a scenario?  Does one party benefit from a heads we win and tails you lose proposition?

How does the Mainframe customer choose the best software product for their business requirement?  In an ideal world, they document their business requirement, collect information on market place offerings, review pricing options, generate a shortlist of suitable products, and eventually choose the “best-of-breed” product.  How is such a structured and balanced approach possible when deploying the Enterprise Software License Agreement?  The first thought must be cost based, as software has already been paid for, so if there’s a product in the portfolio we could use, we need to use it, whether it’s the best product or not.

If a Mainframe user is using an internal chargeback system for computing use, how can they fairly cost the pricing metric, if they don’t know the price of software products used?  Equally, how can the Mainframe user attempt to identify single product pricing when Enterprise Software License Agreements detail no granularity of pricing information?  Perhaps a modicum of research might help, where some global Government regulations dictate that contract details must be published for public scrutiny.  Therefore ISV Mainframe software list pricing details can be identified, for example, IBM and BMC.

One must draw one’s own conclusions, where some Mainframe customers may perform a structured review of the market place, and even though the technical recommendation might be for a product not covered by an Enterprise Software License Agreement, typically from a smaller ISV, the product chosen is one already paid for, or at least available from the Enterprise Software License Agreement.  This generates several issues, including but not limited to, alienating the smaller ISV community, having used them for expediency, and not delivering the best solution for your business…

So does the self-fulfilling prophecy ensue, where the Mainframe customer questions the cost of Mainframe software, but perhaps implicitly or unknowingly, said Mainframe user has contributed to such an environment, where a limited number Mainframe ISV’s control the Mainframe software market?

Isn’t it somewhat of a paradox that in The UK, the monopolies commission would review the merits of an M&A between two major grocery supermarket or energy supplier companies, and yet whether in The UK or globally, there are several major ISV’s (E.g. ASG, BMC, CA, IBM) dominating the Mainframe software market, primarily via Enterprise Software License Agreements?  Can this really be a good thing for the Mainframe user, limited supplier choice and therefore a lack of healthy competition?

Perhaps it is the responsibility of the Mainframe user to actually choose software impartially, and from time-to-time choose the best product, regardless of ISV.  This might generate a more active market place for software choice, while it was forever thus, the larger ISV is so big that they can easily acquire the smaller ISV who has developed and sold a good product, but at least the Mainframe ISV market place continues to evolve.  In this case, it seems somewhat logical that the Mainframe user is in control of their destiny, but only by safeguarding that their default option is not the Enterprise Software License Agreement.  They encourage an active and impartial ISV software market by dispassionately reviewing the open market and choosing the best Mainframe software product for their business!

Lewis Carroll once said “integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching”!  When was the last time a major ISV declared an open book policy for your business, offering you flexible options to benefit from their Enterprise Software License Agreement, while allowing you to choose a best-of-breed software product, but not from their software portfolio, giving you a discount (credit note) for their software product that didn’t match your business requirement?