Saturday, April 19, 2014
Phenix Management International Newsfeed

Monday, November 18, 2013
Toronto, ON
Saturday, November 16, 2013
by Bill Kutik
Saturday, October 12, 2013
HR Executive Magazine
Follow Us On Twitter

11 minutes ago
WAYNE WELLS Inducted into the Peterborough & District Sports Hall of Fame #Fastball http://t.co/SRSnkDnV8Y


23 minutes ago
RT @dlogan19: What I wouldn't do to listen to Bob Cole and Harry Neal right now


1 hour ago
RT @ASAUSASoftball: Game schedule released for the 2014 ISF XIV Women's World Championship @WCSoftball2014 @ISFsoftball http://t.co/mPuW06v


1 hour ago
RT @SnowdonBob: Bruins have hic-cups in 1-0 opening loss. Not time 2 jump off a cliff though, still a long way to go. Too much talent to pa


2 hours ago
RT @MontrealCP: Bourque scores twice, Canadiens clinch 2-0 series lead over Tampa Bay: Rene Bourque scored twice as the Montreal... http://





Announcements

Don't Be a Software Vendor Victim, You Have Choices

Friday, August 7, 2009
Don't Be a Software Vendor Victim, You Have Choices
I was on a call with a client today who is renegotiating a contract with a vendor.  I am not going to name names because it does not make any difference.  It made me angry because the client was acting like a victim.  "What if the vendor comes to audit our software usage and finds we are out compliance.  It might cost us a lot of money".  The client was bending over backwards to try to make sure that they were in compliance.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Most customers do make their best effort to be compliant.  The challenge is that this particular vendor has so much ambiguity in the language of their contracts and policies that the client cannot really tell if they are in compliance.
Here are two examples of ambiguity:
  • The vendor offers a limited use and a full use version of a product.  There is no clear criteria about the limits of use for the limited use version.  Complicating matters, the customer purchased the product before the vendor started to delineate between a limited use and full use version.  So, they also might have used it in ways that go beyond the limited use prior to their being a full use solution.  They are not sure.  I was not sure in some cases. 
At a minimum, when vendors introduce these distinctions, anyone who had bought the product prior to the policy or offering change should be grandfathered.  Period.  Trying to convince the customer that they should pay additionally to get the full use version is just plain wrong (unless they intend to use it going forward in ways that would require the full use version). 


FULL ARTICLE
Copyright © 2002-2014 Phenix Management International
For more information please read our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use
Designed and Hosted by Net Reliant
Powered by Reliant CMS