The frustrations generated by the software-buying process are legion. One CIO, who works for a $1 billion-plus company, describes his recent experience purchasing $900,000 worth of software. What is needed, he concludes, is a much more straightforward, transparent model for software licensing.

The problems began when none of the prospective vendors took the time to understand his company's needs, the CIO writes under the pseudonym John McGreavy in a post at InformationWeek. A presentation delivered hastily over a cell phone and failure to ask relevant questions got the process off to a bad start.

Things got much worse when it came to negotiating prices. The vendors were offering a discount of 80 percent to 90 percent off the list price, but future fees, which may not be readily identifiable, would be based on the list price. This only required more time negotiating the contract to prevent such future surprises.

To further aggrevate the process, the selected vendor used different licensing models for different software modules. Some components required different levels of named user licenses, and others--even in the same platform--required a license for the whole company. One module came with a license based on CPU size, and the price of another varied based on whether you already have some of the products from the vendor.

"This was one of the few times when I sympathized with the vendor reps closing this deal. It was difficult for them to communicate the licensing options and keep a straight face," McGreavy writes.

A CIO might not normally be so involved in the details of licensing, but this one felt bad for his manager who was in charge of it. "Software pricing can and should be far simpler. Instead, the software industry is chasing the cellular carriers for the MLPMOTP award: Most Ludicrous Pricing Model On The Planet," he writes.

For more:
- see John McGreavy's post at InformationWeek

Related Article:
Forrester:  Recession causing software auditors to crack down hard