I'm going to mention this... knowing there are probably a dozen reasons to
reject the thought.  If most things are outsourced, and little training in
house--perhaps it's time to take an unbiased review of "why do we have CM
inhouse at all anymore"--maybe for what you need, Intune solves more issues
for you than keeping CM inhouse does.

I'm not saying it'll be the answer to everything--but perhaps a review of
current and future needs (vs "we've always done it this way") might reveal
that intune is a good fit.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Burke, John <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I had it sort of explained to me now.
>
>
>
> All of our hardware comes with a license for Windows. So basically we have
> a mix of domains with various sccm. Then we have office on every pc and
> other products we license individually.
>
>
>
> We outsource MOST of our IT support (so we don’t have to train and care
> less about innovation).
>
>
>
> So at the end of the day – EA costs us money because we are basically
> getting little out of it because of the above.   That make sense?
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Burke, John
> *Sent:* February-17-16 5:32 PM
>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> “I have all the details if you want them but basically xxx has avoided
> over $35M in the past 6 years by buying out their Enterprise License
> Agreement. They were paying close to $6M annually for maintenance.
>
>
>
> xxxx avoided $1.7M annually and xxxx was close to $2M.”
>
>
>
> It’s pretty hard to argue with that L
>
>
>
> Maybe I’ll contact one of those companies below, but I’m sure management
> could just say – we saved the money because we didn’t upgrade or take
> advantage of most of the stuff in those agreements.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Burke, John
> *Sent:* February-17-16 3:45 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> That is 150% the way management works here.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Jason Sandys
> *Sent:* February-17-16 3:44 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> Speaks “Management”, LOL.
>
>
>
> IME, the key phrase is “long-term” savings. Many management types aren’t
> concerned with the long-term, just the short-term so that they can get
> their bonuses for this quarter. I’ve seen this happen multiple times.
>
>
>
> J
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Marcum, John
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:34 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> MS can send someone who speaks Management speak in to show them the
> numbers. I’d guess that they are probably very badly out of compliance
> right now or they would know that they are spending boat loads of money
>
>
>
>
> * ------------------------------ *
>
> *        John Marcum*
>
>             MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
> *              Desktop Architect*
>
> *   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP*
> * ------------------------------ *
>
>
>
>   [image: H_Logo]
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Burke, John
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:26 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> Powers that be don’t that and It’s not been articulated to them in  a way
> they would understand it.
>
>
>
> I wouldn’t be able to explain it either myself why it would cost more in
> the long run either.  I’ve not see anything documented that would hint at
> that either to even put the bug in their ear.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Marcum, John
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:24 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> To take out an EA for 30,000 users would be LOTS of money. In the millions
> of dollars…. To not have an EA and have 30,000 users is probably going to
> cost triple that in the long run.
>
>
> * ------------------------------ *
>
> *        John Marcum*
>
>             MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
> *              Desktop Architect*
>
> *   Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP*
> * ------------------------------ *
>
>
>
>   [image: H_Logo]
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [
> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Juelich, Adam
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:29 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> What he said.
>
>
>
> Over the past few years Microsoft has changed several things with
> licensing that has usually made it more affordable for companies to have an
> EA with SA.  You may be able to get this license based on FTE (Full Time
> Employee Equivalent) and save quite a bit of money.
>
>
>
> I'd recommend working with a company that deals with licensing
> specifically to help you get what you want at the best price.  We work with
> SoftwareONE on that.....
>
>
>
>
> *-----------------------------------------------*
>
> *Adam Juelich*
>
> Pulaski Community School District <http://www.pulaskischools.org>
>
> Client Management Specialist
>
> 920-822-6075
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, if you’re in a company of 30,000 clients, and you’re not in
> an EA with SA, you’re just asking for trouble.
>
>
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Burke, John
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:10 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [mssms] SCCM and SA Agreements
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> I’m here as part of a smaller company that just got eaten up by a large
> company that doesn’t have an SA with Microsoft thus, can’t upgrade to 2012
> without significant cost.
>
>
>
> I’m wondering how many on this list don’t have enterprise agreements?
>
>
>
> I’m also wondering why they are so against an SA because of cost.  Are
> they that expensive to get for say 30000 system/ users  and isn’t it offset
> by the tools you automatically get access to via MDOP and so on?
>
>
>
> Any input would be appreciated. I’d love to be able to get back to point
> that all the sub companies and domains could all get on the same Tech for
> imaging, software deployment and so on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *The Pulaski Community School District does not discriminate on the basis
> of any characteristic protected under State or Federal law.*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be
> protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to
> this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Thank you,

Sherry Kissinger

My Parameters:  Standardize. Simplify. Automate
Blogs: http://www.mofmaster.com, http://mnscug.org/blogs/sherry-kissinger,
http://www.smguru.org



Reply via email to