So these engagements began to look all over the place; the data centers, servers hidden under tables, desktops converted to servers for a simple test or proof of concept, users created though inactive, resigned employees not deactivated, it did not matter what the event was, if there was a user identity or a database, or an instance of the application, it needed to be licensed. Office automation and other fringe app vendors joined the fray and added to the already harried CIOs’ blood pressure.

No debate that license compliance is non-negotiable; licenses for software or product or package used for the enterprise that in any way impacts a business process. Most vendors allow disaster recovery to be set up at nominal or no extra investment as long as it is not used conjointly with the production environment. That looks like a good principle though some complicate matters based on number of days used even when the primary was down and not operational.

The ways of the vendors

Some also allow test and development instances to be set up; interestingly, most do have a licencing policy that charges the customer, however, most sales teams shy away from highlighting this fact during the pre-sales discussions or even when the purchase order is received. Instead, they give the CIO a fine printed legal document to sign without pointing out to the salient points that the customer needs to be aware of. I don’t know of CIOs who read those wonderful documents; it’s like pressing “I accept” when we enrol to a new website or app.

So far still so good as each instance expects the customer to get into an engagement with eyes and ears open; the principle being we gave you the full documents, you read and sign or you don’t read and sign, that is a choice. The discussion gets interesting when new or additional licenses are required even if a line of code is changed or added to any screen, form or report or an add-on deployed. This now attracts additional investment, sometimes a lot more than bargained for. Now that is hitting below the belt!

Killing with the fine print

If I may add, the same vendors participate during the pre-sales gap analysis and bid and quote for customizations through their consulting arms vying for implementation business. But no mention that if the customer did end up customizing, then … This aspect of licencing is rarely discussed if at all and mostly comes up during license audits leaving the CIO gasping for life. The management demands that the CIO know all this as it is his/ her job to know and manage the vendor.

Page number XX, clause YY, sub-clause ZZ in the sales agreement is cited as the reference for the new demand. Read it and if you can figure it out differently let us know; else here is the bill of material and the timeline in which you need to buy. Consequences you know are not something you want to talk about. Sheepish acceptance and wows to be more careful and read all the fine print is normal behavior; the management takes a not-so-kind view but goes ahead with the devil’s choice.

A global issue?

Why does this charade repeat itself globally with many vendors, some more than others? It does not matter which industry, which country or geography, size of the customer (in fact the bigger the better as they are averse to the publicity it draws), this is becoming one of the relationship breakers between the impacted CIO and the vendor. Stories of these are rarely published by publicity shy individuals and enterprises. Is there a way out?

I believe there isn’t an easy way out; negotiating from a compromised position does not get any great deals; neither does it do wonders to CIOs’ careers. Whether they like it or not, CIOs have to get more diligent in their approach to legalese and contracting. As the markets saturate and mature, read changes to changing end user contracts and / or licensing terms. You never know what impact it has on your company.

CIOs in new assignments replace vendors with their preferred partners from the past based on comfort and the proposition that they know the people within the company; they are comfortable with the management hierarchy and the finer nuances of the organization’s way of working. However, such changes are occasionally disruptive to the enterprise as well as the incumbent vendors who may have enjoyed good relationships and business with the earlier CIO.

A lesson in humility
An interesting situation happened when the sales head of a large hardware vendor moved to the larger competitor; the customer used the solution of the earlier vendor and the CIO was planning an upgrade or replacement. The sales head had to come back to the CIO to work in her new avatar to sell the competing solution. Earlier as a customer of the smaller company, she had advised him of the demerits of moving to the industry leader’s solution. The predicament switched over a weekend close to signing the deal created some amusing but discomforting moments for both the CIO and the vendor.

While they enjoyed a great relationship, the CIO demonstrated maturity with fair evaluation and technology taking precedence in the decision making criteria. In the end, the CIO did buy the competing product but with a clear message that the decision was fait accompli before the movement of the sales head. It was a lesson in humility for her being a large order from a marquee customer for which she could claim no credit.

In another case I found that business to business connect was stronger, surviving the changes in relationship managers over the years. The foundation was built on long standing relationship though the delivery was of acceptable quality. This relationship sustained itself with the sales team only facilitating renewal of contract and extension of service.

Lasting relationships?
Why do some relationships survive beyond people or organizations? What makes some shift while others stick to the tried and tested? Does one have merits over the other? What happens when the sales team starts taking the business for granted? How does the CIO break the chains of inertia or comfort keeping the business interests over individual comfort?

I believe that relationships are fragile; they sustain themselves in a symbiotic way when the end result is win-win. When the CIO is in a position of compromise, survival instincts will drive the path ahead. This may result in breakdown of existing relationships. Vendors need to keep a watch in such signs before they reach a break-point; go beyond transactions to engagement. The CIO on his/ her part should constantly engage in an open dialogue with service partners to provide feedback and discuss challenges and opportunities. It is almost like managing internal teams.

Status quo is not an option.

I own multiple devices including a few from the company in discussion, but never stood in queues to be amongst the first, though I know a few who did. I have always waited for a couple of revisions or generations to pass by before acquiring the new iconic device; the primary purpose seen seems to be displaying it prominently or announcing it by the footer in the email.

I get carried away; this is not about new devices or the long queues, but about rotten eggs. In China, fans threw rotten eggs at the stores when the company announced to the teeming crowds who had queued up for long hours that they will not be selling the much awaited device. The decision, as the announcement proclaimed, was taken for the security of the customers who turned up in large numbers. Did those customers come armed with eggs waiting for the store to open?

The incident triggered many wild thoughts. Is the idea extensible to other irritating behaviors, from, say, IT vendors who take the CIO community for a ride? What if every time there is a breach of trust, can I shower the vendor sales or support teams with choicest tomatoes (I am a vegetarian, you know!)? Is this a feat worth emulating when projects do not meet timelines or when misunderstanding of basic requirement by ignorant consultants becomes a change request?

It does have finality to the statement it makes: If I don’t like the outcome, I am going to demonstrate my ire. S’il vouz plait, it may aggravate the situation, but it does create a warm, fuzzy and a lighter feeling to have vented out the frustration and anger. Will the slinging match create a better relationship between the CIO and the other parties?

Last week, while working on a few post contract changes to some service delivery benchmarks, I had an urge to pelt a lot of stuff on the negotiating party. My primal fantasy had to be suppressed to stay within defined corporate behavior and work on the issues step-by-step, steering it towards desired outcomes. Civilized acceptable behavior does not provide latitude to hurl objects when events do not take the turn we desire; even when the consumerization of devices brings unwelcome distractions.

Relationships are built over a period of time, but they can be strained for a long time in an unguarded moment. This applies to any relationship, peers, bosses, team, vendors, family, and friends. CIOs forge relationships possibly with a larger set in comparison to some of their peers. Success is highly dependent on setting and managing realistic expectations. Service delivery and change management are key tenets of the IT agenda.

After all we don’t want to be at the receiving end of the rotten eggs.