We appreciate you taking the time to vote and add your suggestions to make our products awesome! Your request will be submitted to the community for review and inclusion into the backlog.
We recommend reviewing what is submitted before posting, in case your idea has already been submitted by another community member. If it has been submitted, vote for that existing feature request (by clicking the up arrow) to increase its opportunity of being added to Cireson solutions.
For more information around feature requests in the Cireson Community click here.
We recommend reviewing what is submitted before posting, in case your idea has already been submitted by another community member. If it has been submitted, vote for that existing feature request (by clicking the up arrow) to increase its opportunity of being added to Cireson solutions.
For more information around feature requests in the Cireson Community click here.
Enable registration of the Management cost level for a SW Asset
Jon_Runheim
Customer Adept IT Monkey ✭✭
A software asset always have two costs - one cost that is displayed in the IT Portal for the end user and one cost which is the IT internal management cost for the SW. W
hen discussing SW assets within IT governance functions we always look at both. For example: A standard app has a list price, but also a normal management cost. A freeware app has a 0 list price, but also a normal management cost. An inhouse developed app has a 0 list price but a high management cost. When discussing from a Governance perspective, free isn't "free", but to display that to the end users is not viable.
Hence, the need for a second cost field is neccesary. The two could be named: Portal Cost, Management Cost
hen discussing SW assets within IT governance functions we always look at both. For example: A standard app has a list price, but also a normal management cost. A freeware app has a 0 list price, but also a normal management cost. An inhouse developed app has a 0 list price but a high management cost. When discussing from a Governance perspective, free isn't "free", but to display that to the end users is not viable.
Hence, the need for a second cost field is neccesary. The two could be named: Portal Cost, Management Cost
2
Comments
Would this be used in Cross Charging tot he business or for budgeting time and effort require to package, support, deploy etc. an app?
I see that this field would do both but I'm interested in what you envision it used for.
The management cost would be used for IT governance to visualize the IT cost for package, support, deploy etc. the apps.
This would then be used in scenarios when we want to reduce the amount of apps with overlapping functionality - the cost saving of the app must supersede the management cost to exist at all, and fo overlapping apps, it must do so even more.
It can also be used to drive change for apps that doesn't use the common infrastructure, but special setups. These apps will have way higher management costs and will become more visible targets for cost reductions / replacements. If not visualized, they will just disappear in the "noice".
As you understand this would be very useful from an IT Governance prespective to us.
I hope this explained the use cases further