Copyright 1997 CAUSE. From CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 20, Number 2, Summer 1997, p. 53-54. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: jrudy@cause.org
by Glen McCandless
In preparation for his participation on a panel discussion at the Software Publisher's Association conference, the author asked participants in CAUSE's CIO listserv to share their concerns about software licensing, distribution, and development in higher education. This article reports the author's recommendations to software publishers at the SPA meeting, based on that feedback, and suggests that more dialogue in this area is needed.
You'll be surprised at the title of a panel session I participated in at the spring Software Publisher's Association (SPA) conference in San Diego.1 "The Changing Nature of Higher Education" seems almost an oxymoron. You probably agree, change is not a word we usually think of when we're talking about colleges and universities.
We were there to inspire dialog among 1,500 executives of software companies to change their software licensing, distribution, and development programs in light of the changes you're experiencing on your campus. As one of the panelists, I was eager to share the suggestions I heard from several CAUSE members I polled before the conference.
The fact that the session attracted a crowd of eighty (in past years twenty were expected) was evidence to me that something might really be going on besides a lot of talk about change -- something more than switching from quarters to semesters. I mean real change! And software, as you know, is at the epicenter of the dynamics, and an increasing financial consideration for colleges and universities.
I'm sure it's no news to you that software purchases are consuming more of your budget. In fact, according to CCA Consulting (Natick, Massachusetts), current annual institutional spending for software is nearly $800 million now and will grow to over $1 billion in the year 2000. All this software purchasing is going on amidst challenges to the basic underpinnings of the institution. Revenue, productivity, accountability, competition -- words associated with for-profit enterprises -- are creeping into more discussions among academicians. And a lot of this is being driven by technology, ultimately software. It seems logical that the way you buy and distribute software to your campus community should also change, but for the most part, it is status quo.
What does this mean to you, the higher ed software consumer? Simply stated, the licensing and distribution options software publishers offer higher education buyers are outdated.
We still have publishers offering lab-packs (multiple copies of their products designed for individual users and one machine) and site-licenses based on a number of computers or the student population.
Software publishers are still trying to sell software products to students and faculty by putting stickers on their consumer retail products and distributing them through college stores. Only a few buyers and publishers have access to this channel.
These common practices don't fit the new paradigm of universal access via a network or a diverse student population that is likely to be taking classes at home or in a lecture hall, around the corner or thousands of miles away. Our concept of a campus as a specific place is history. Frankly, the lack of new ideas for licensing and distribution is a missed opportunity for publishers and their customers.
So, where does this take us? At the SPA meeting, I made several suggestions to the audience of software publishers on behalf of higher ed software buyers, and I am interested in your feedback on these ideas.
Courseware has been a bust for the software industry. Costs to develop, sell, and market content-based software have far exceeded the sales of these products, and the result is obvious. We don't have much commercial courseware on campus. Software publishers are unwilling to invest in creating good commercial courseware because it has not been a good business.
First, I suggested that courseware publishers work with their higher education customers to experiment with pay-for-use licensing programs. These could be implemented over a network with authentication technology, or, like textbooks, through a buy-back system. Publishers frustrated by the dismal economics of courseware sales to academic departments should wise up and realize that students buy course materials, but few of them keep the materials when the course is over. Why software publishers expect the average student to spend as much as or more than the cost of a textbook for a software program doesn't make sense to me. Neither does trying to convince the departments to provide courseware to students. It's not going to happen!
Second, I suggested that courseware publishers unbundle their content, license smaller pieces of it over the Internet, and charge for it on a subscription basis. If faculty could easily integrate a variety of content into their own syllabus, rather than have to license the "whole enchilada," they might be more receptive to using commercial software in their courses.
To all software publishers, I had some general recommendations with regard to their dealings with the higher education community. On top of my list was a cry I heard from a number of CAUSE members, that is, to license software based on concurrent use instead of lab packs, machine licenses, and the campus population. With networks, key servers, smart cards, and the like, this is the way to go.
Next, I suggested that publishers differentiate themselves by offering innovative support programs, especially in terms of upgrades, to make it easier for the folks responsible for managing software. Simple things like making manuals available for duplication or ordering can make a big difference.
I pointed out that EDI standards, long demanded by corporate customers with large transaction volumes, might be integrated into administrative applications to make it easier for students to transfer and access their records when they move from one institution to another.
When it comes to offering a total solution for the higher education customer, I challenged the software executives to work more closely with the computer hardware companies to create a total solution to the universal access issue. Loading dozens of "free" applications on the hard drive or stuffing them in the box doesn't differentiate computer brands or software publishers any more. Rather than an added value, this popular strategy creates support headaches for higher education customers.
Finally, I urged the software industry to recognize that the higher education institution is more of a channel than a market, and that in their dealings with institutional buyers that this consideration be top-of-mind. Software publishers can partner with schools and allow them more freedom to distribute software to students and faculty in a way that benefits both the publisher and the higher education customer.
So what suggestions do I have for you, the software buyer? The SPA is an important conduit to the people responsible for creating and licensing the products you buy. You can instigate more discussion among CAUSE members about software licensing and distribution, and make sure that the needs and ideas of higher education software buyers are brought forward to the SPA. One loud voice on behalf of colleges and universities could have a real impact on the thinking of the software publishers. As it is, the exchange of information is too fragmented to reach critical mass. The higher education community is a huge consumer of software and needs to do a lot more to influence licensing and distribution policies. Your voice is not being heard!
In closing, I ask you to take a few minutes to respond to my suggestions. What would you like to change about software licensing and distribution? Don't assume that you don't have the say-so. I think there are willing ears in the software industry anxious to understand your needs and respond to them. Let's all work together to make software technology your ally in responding to the dramatic changes you're faced with today in higher education. At the next SPA meeting, maybe the higher ed session will be standing room only.
1 The SPA higher education session was chaired by Lin Marten of DelMar Publishing, who is also the head of the higher education special section within the SPA, a small (but growing) contingency. Along with Lin, the panel included the author, the principal of a small business that provides marketing services to educational technology companies; Kenneth C. (Casey) Green, a scholar and consultant on trends in higher education at Claremont University; and Eric Denna, manager of information technology at Brigham Young University. SPA's Web site is at http://www.spa.org/
Glen McCandless (focusmarketing@ mindspring.com) is president of Focus Marketing, Inc., an Atlanta-based firm that provides software publishers and technology companies with strategic planning and marketing services for the K-12 and college markets.
![[Comments]](/ir/library/html/cem/comments.gif){kind=small}
![[Search]](/ir/library/html/cem/search.gif){kind=small}
![[Home]](/ir/library/html/cem/home.gif){kind=small}