To illustrate the application of the described methodology, let us consider an example of implementing a Software Asset Management (SAM) system in a financial organization.

As an example, we will look at a medium-sized commercial bank operating in the national market with a distributed IT infrastructure. At the time the initiative began, the organization's infrastructure included approximately 6,000 workstations and 2,500 servers ensuring the operation of key banking services.

The bank's IT landscape included a wide range of software, with key manufacturers being: Microsoft (Windows Server, SQL Server, System Center, Microsoft Office, Microsoft 365), Oracle (Database, Real Application Clusters (RAC), WebLogic Server, Fusion Middleware, Java SE), IBM (WebSphere Application Server, DB2, MQ, Cognos Analytics), SAP, VMware, Red Hat, HPE, Citrix, Adobe (Acrobat Pro, Acrobat Reader, Creative Cloud), Commvault, SAS, F5 Networks, and Fortinet. A significant portion of these products was used to support critical banking systems, including remote banking systems, transaction processing, analytical platforms, and data management systems.

The IT landscape also utilized several corporate management systems, including:

• The Jira Service Management ITSM platform for managing incidents, changes, and service requests;
• SAP ERP for financial accounting and procurement management;
• Active Directory for managing user accounts;
• The VMware vSphere virtualization system;
• The Jira Insight module, used as a CMDB for infrastructure and IT asset accounting.

Before the SAM implementation initiative, data on software licenses and IT assets were stored in various sources, including Excel spreadsheets, and partially in the Jira Insight system, which was used for basic hardware accounting.

The lack of a unified asset management system led to fragmented data, difficulties in determining the actual license position, and increased risks of non-compliance with the licensing requirements of software manufacturers.

Information about licenses was stored in different sources, procurement and software usage processes were not standardized, and visibility into installed and used software and hardware assets was limited.

As a result, the organization faced:

• Increased risks of licensing non-compliance: for example, audits by Microsoft and Oracle revealed discrepancies in the use of server licenses and individual Oracle Database options, resulting in additional payments and settlement of licensing claims amounting to approximately $280,000.
• Difficulties in preparing for vendor audits, as IT asset and license data were in different sources and required significant manual verification.
• Inefficient use of purchased licenses: analysis showed that about 15-20% of Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat licenses had no actual use, leading to annual excess subscription costs of $150,000–$180,000.
• A lack of centralized control over infrastructure and installed software.

To solve these problems, the bank's management decided to implement a comprehensive SAM system as part of the IT asset management system.

SAM Documents and Policies

As part of the SAM system implementation, a set of corporate documents was developed to regulate the management of software assets. In particular, the following were approved:

• Software Asset Management Policy;
• IT Asset Management Regulations;
• Software Procurement Procedure;
• License Accounting and Management Procedure;
• Software Installation and Deployment Procedure;
• Software Decommissioning Procedure;
• Regulations for Interaction with Software Vendors and Conducting License Audits;
• Software Asset Reporting Regulations.

These documents formed the basis of the corporate software asset management system and ensured the formalization of processes related to the software lifecycle.

Defining the Management Scope and Organizational Model

In the first stage, a series of working sessions were held with key process participants, including representatives from IT departments, the financial block, the procurement department, and the legal function.

Within these activities, the following were defined:

• The scope of the SAM system;
• The list of software manufacturers included in the priority management zone;
• The organizational structure of responsibility;
• Data sources for software assets and licenses.

Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, SAP, and VMware were identified as priority manufacturers. These vendors accounted for more than 80% of software costs and represented the greatest licensing risks.

To manage software assets, a specialized team was formed, including representatives from several departments:

SAM Organizational Model:

• CIO / Head of IT – responsible for the software asset management strategy and approval of the SAM policy.
• SAM Manager – responsible for managing the SAM system, developing processes, and interacting with key vendors.
• SAM Analysts (3 specialists) – perform license analysis, calculate the license position, and prepare reports.
• ITAM Manager – responsible for hardware and infrastructure accounting.
• Procurement Specialist – ensures control over software purchases.
• IT Service Manager – ensures the integration of SAM processes into ITSM processes.

The total asset management team consisted of 6 people interacting with the financial department, the legal service, and business service owners.

Obtaining Infrastructure Visibility

The next stage was the implementation of the specialized SAM tool Flexera One. The platform ensured the consolidation of data from various sources, the use of the Technopedia software recognition library, and the formation of a single source of truth for IT assets and licenses.

The tool allowed for the automation of:

• Information collection about the infrastructure (servers, workstations, and virtual machines);
• Collection of software inventory data;
• Normalization and recognition of applications;
• Mapping software installations to licenses;
• Calculation of the license balance;
• Identification of potential license risks and optimization opportunities.

The tool was also integrated with several corporate systems to ensure data completeness and relevance:

• Active Directory – for synchronizing users and organizational structure;
• VMware vSphere – for obtaining information about the virtual infrastructure, hosts, and virtual machines;
• Jira Service Management – for integration with ITSM processes;
• SAP ERP – for uploading information about purchases, licenses, and contracts;
• Jira Insights – for synchronizing configuration data and asset lifecycle statuses.

As a result, the organization gained visibility into the installed software and the infrastructure on which it is deployed.

Formalizing Management Processes

After obtaining reliable data, key SAM processes were formalized, including:

• Software lifecycle management;
• Hardware lifecycle management;
• Procurement and licensing control;
• License compliance management;
• Preparation for vendor audits;
• Regular analysis and optimization of license usage.

System owners were appointed to be responsible for software lifecycle management, license usage control, and interaction with business units.

Integrating SAM into Business Processes

SAM processes were integrated into the organization's existing IT and business processes, including:

• Software procurement processes;
• Infrastructure change management;
• IT asset management;
• Financial planning and budgeting.

Key stakeholders, including the CIO, CFO, and business service owners, were involved in the software asset management processes. This allowed software and infrastructure data to be linked to financial and management decisions.

Measuring SAM Effectiveness

To evaluate the effectiveness of the SAM system, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were introduced, including:

• The level of infrastructure coverage by the inventory system;
• The completeness and relevance of software installation data;
• The number of identified license discrepancies;
• The volume of savings from license optimization.

Such indicators are standard practice for evaluating the effectiveness of a SAM system and are used to measure the economic effect and the maturity level of asset management.

Implementation Results

During the first year after the SAM system implementation, the organization achieved the following results:

1. Microsoft License Optimization

• An analysis of the distribution and use of Microsoft Office licenses was conducted.
• About 700 licenses were redistributed between departments by applying license reuse mechanisms and analyzing actual software usage.
• Additionally, a rationalization of used editions and plans was carried out, which allowed for the reduction of redundant licenses.
• Savings on the purchase of new licenses amounted to approximately $180,000.

2. Server License Optimization

• A review of Windows Server, System Center, and SQL Server licensing was conducted, taking into account the actual architecture of the virtual infrastructure.
• By consolidating server workloads and optimizing the placement of virtual machines, the licensing model for server products was revised.
• Host-level licensing opportunities and optimization of virtual environment coverage were applied, allowing for more efficient use of existing licenses.
• As a result, the need for new licenses decreased by approximately 15%.
• Savings amounted to approximately $250,000.

3. Reduction of Audit Risks

• During the infrastructure analysis, potential license discrepancies were identified in the use of Oracle Database, including the use of options and components requiring additional licensing.
• A check of the actual use of additional Oracle options and packs was conducted, some of which were disabled or decommissioned.
• Based on infrastructure data collected by the system, an analysis of the virtualization architecture and partitioning mechanisms was conducted, which allowed for the correct determination of the license boundaries for server use.
• Additionally, an audit of Oracle Java usage was conducted, after which some systems were moved to alternative free Java distributions.
• The savings from prevented audit risks amounted to approximately $300,000.

4. Optimization of Other Vendors' Software

• More than 150 unused applications were removed.
• Software support and update costs were reduced.
• Savings amounted to approximately $60,000.

Aggregate effect of the first year of system implementation: The total economic effect was approximately $790,000.

Conclusion

As the system developed, software asset management practice became a stable and regular part of the organization's activities. After the initial optimization stage, when the main discrepancies and savings opportunities were identified, the main focus was on maintaining and developing the established processes.

As part of the further development of SAM, the team continued to improve the asset management system: integrations with corporate systems were expanded, license and software lifecycle management processes were formed, and regular practices for analyzing and optimizing the use of software products were introduced.

Established communications between IT departments, the financial block, the procurement department, and business service owners played an important role in the development of SAM. This ensured the transparency of data on licenses, purchases, and infrastructure and allowed them to be used in budget planning, modernization, and the introduction of new technologies.

Management support and the development of the team's competencies established SAM as a permanent practice for managing the organization's IT environment and ensured the ability of processes to adapt to changes in technology and business requirements.

This example demonstrates that effective software asset management requires a combination of methodology, processes, tools, and organizational responsibility. It is a comprehensive approach that allows organizations to ensure transparency in software use, reduce licensing risks, and increase the efficiency of software asset management.

This is precisely the approach that Synta helps companies implement and develop for their software asset management processes.

‍