Featured Article from Software Licensing

Some Key Points to Consider in New Entitlement Management Approaches

November 18, 2016

Sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence not because of some false sense of dissatisfaction, but rather because it actually is greener. Entitlement management is no different, as a recent blog post from Flexera Software detailed, and those planning to make a change on this front may want to consider a few key points.

Whether one's planning to make the jump from a bolt-on system to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) or a customer relationship management (CRM) tool like SAP (News - Alert) or Salesforce, or moving between different versions of the same solution, it can be the kind of thing that doesn't work out quite as well as some would expect without the proper method.

As a result, there are three primary plans for making the jump. There's the all-at-once approach known as the “Big Bang (News - Alert),” the slow slide known as the “Over Time”, and the double-edged strategy known as the “All New Go Here, All Old Stay There” plan.

For instance, the Big Bang plan requires only one system to be managed, which can be useful and trim some costs accordingly. With one point of integration to consider, it's a little easier to manage, and it makes for a complete user experience. If something goes wrong, everyone's hit evenly, and that can mean complete losses of effort.

Using the Over Time approach reduces risk, but it increases the length of the project timeline accordingly. That means increased costs and the potential for misunderstanding to step in as some users are on one experience and others are on another while the shift is taking place.

The Old There / New Here approach offers a hybrid approach between the previous two, getting an all-at-once approach for some with that same potential split in misunderstanding. It also makes the project timeline longer and requires two systems be supported and maintained for some time, effectively giving users access to all the benefits and drawbacks of the previous system at the same time.

Naturally, just which approach is best depends wholly on the organization; the risk-averse and cash-flush should consider the longer timeline options as these may take longer, but also mean less risk. Smaller organizations may do better with Big Bang as it's quick, if risky, and an organization with less data overall has less to migrate, so that fang is pulled at the outset.

In the end, the only way to get the best chance of success is with careful consideration of the risks and rewards. While there are plenty of options, this also means there are plenty of ways to go wrong with the whole situation. Careful planning will separate winners from losers here.

Edited by Maurice Nagle
Article comments powered by Disqus