Thursday, April 24, 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

44 minutes ago
Teams looking for Players, Players looking for Teams, even Leagues looking for Players and Teams, the game #Fastball http://t.co/yW6MEbY8ur


1 hour ago
RT @JimLangSports: Thanks to @yahoomac for joining me @1059TheRegion to talk #NHL playoffs. Steve does good work and dealing with @wyshynsk


10 hours ago
RT @TheHockeyNews: If youre wondering why the @Penguins are struggling, look at Crosby, Malkin & Co., not M-A Fleury: http://t.co/8oXogI7r


10 hours ago
RT @JoshYohe_Trib: Fleury messed up on the final two goals. Can't deny that. But his teammates were outshot 46-25 by the Blue Jackets. Can'


10 hours ago
RT @hockeynight: GOAL! Vladimir Tarasenko has his 4th goal of the post-season to give the @StLouisBlues the lead in the 3rd. #hockeynight





Contact Us

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