Joseph Sweeney

Joseph Sweeney

Dr. Joseph Sweeney is an IBRS advisor specialising in the areas of workforce transformation and the future of work, including; workplace strategies, end-user computing, collaboration, workflow and low code development, data-driven strategies, policy, and organisational cultural change. He is the author of IBRS’s Digital Workspaces methodology. Dr Sweeney has a particular focus on Microsoft, Google, AWS, VMWare, and Citrix. He often assists organisations in rationalising their licensing spend while increasing workforce engagement. He is also deeply engaged in the education sector. Joseph was awarded the University of Newcastle Medal in 2007 for his studies in Education, and his doctorate, granted in 2015, was based on research into Australia’s educational ICT policies for student device deployments.

Read latest work...

Connect with Joseph

Have a specific question Joseph Sweeney?

Email

Conclusion: Determining the optimum licensing mix involves not only an understanding of Software Assurance, but also consultation with the organisation’s business strategy groups, as well as a firm understanding of potential structural changes, such as mergers, de-mergers, acquisitions, and growth strategies. Getting the wrong mix can result in overspend, or worse, an inability to adopt business strategies such as mobility, activity based working, or bring-your-own-device.


Read more


Related Articles:

"Understanding and Optimising Microsoft Software Assurance: Part 1 – The Basics" IBRS, 2014-10-01 20:28:23

Software Asset Management tools vendors have been spreading the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) as thick and as fast as they can. It’s not that they’re wrong in their claims of the risks. It’s just that mitigating these risks is not a matter of technology. SAM is a matter of process. It’s a matter of maturity. And here lies a problem with how software asset management is currently being positioned in Australia.


Read more


Conclusion: Microsoft’s Software Assurance should not be viewed as a monolithic software maintenance and ‘upgrade path’ for existing solutions. Instead, it should be viewed as a collection of additional licences that extend product usage rights, and grant features for enterprise scale deployments. Knowing which Software Assurance licences to procure, and which to reject, can result in significant savings.


Read more


Related Articles:

"Understanding and Optimising Software Assurance: Part 2" IBRS, 2014-10-31 17:57:54

Conclusion: Vendor offerings for end-to-end solutions for ‘self-service desktops’ are both limited and immature. Furthermore, organisations are likely to have many of the individual components that comprise a self-service desktop solution. For the next 4-6 years end-user computing cycle, organisations should look to construct self-service portals from existing point solutions, rather than looking for a pre-integrated stack.


Read more


Conclusion: The architecture for a Software Asset Management solution must take into account an organisation’s structure, ability to digest and utilise the information that such solutions provide, using existing tools and processes. Furthermore, the architecture should not be considered a final end-state, but rather an evolving set of technologies and processes which will incrementally deliver benefits over time.


Read more


Related Articles:

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 1: A pragmatic model" IBRS, 2014-05-30 00:00:00

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 2: A Process for bootstrapping maturity" IBRS, 2014-06-29 00:00:00

"Software Asset Management maturity Part 4: Approaches for selecting a solution" IBRS, 2017-07-03 23:42:13

Conclusion: Organisations looking to adopt Software Asset Management (SAM) tools for the first time often discover that they lack the structure and maturity to realise the full benefits of these tools. Addressing the deep cultural issues that are at the heart SAM maturity may not be rushed, leapfrogged or outsourced. Instead, a steady process of organisational development is needed. 


Read more


Related Articles:

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 1: A pragmatic model" IBRS, 2014-05-30 00:00:00

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 3: Aligning Architecture" IBRS, 2014-07-29 11:24:24

"Software Asset Management maturity Part 4: Approaches for selecting a solution" IBRS, 2017-07-03 23:42:13

Conclusion: Most Software Asset Management (SAM) Maturity models are theoretical and do not provide an organisation with a pragmatic way to consider SAM in the context of their organisational objectives. IBRS proposes an alternative that provides organisations with a basis to plan gradual, incremental improvements in both technology and, more importantly, organisational culture.


Read more


Related Articles:

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 2: A Process for bootstrapping maturity" IBRS, 2014-06-29 00:00:00

"Software Asset Management Maturity Part 3: Aligning Architecture" IBRS, 2014-07-29 11:24:24

"Software Asset Management maturity Part 4: Approaches for selecting a solution" IBRS, 2017-07-03 23:42:13

Conclusions: Based on cost modelling, organisations looking to provide a ‘Windows virtual desktop’ experience should consider centralised, Windows Server OS based computing as opposed to Windows Desktop OS based computing. In addition to lower costs for hardware and simpler management and deployment, Windows Server OS based computing has a licensing model that can be just 25% of the cost of Windows Desktop OS based computing. Furthermore, Windows Server OS based computing licensing provides for greater freedom of where and on what devices the end-user desktop experience may be deployed.


Read more


Conclusion: Organisations that need to run legacy applications under Windows XP will no longer have access to economically sustainable options. In short, there is no way to maintain an XP environment without Software Assurance, and thus there is no practical way for an organisation to continue to run legacy applications without investing in Software Assurance or Enterprise Agreements for the desktop. Organisations should factor in the significant licensing costs when considering the business case for continued support of ‘XP only’ to legacy applications.


Read more


Conclusion: IT groups often seek to manage mobile device fleets using practices honed for desktops and laptops. These groups will find themselves facing eight significant challenges. Furthermore, as the mobile management field evolves, desktops and laptops will take on some mobile device management practices, rather than mobile devices being shoehorned into traditional desktop management practices.


Read more


The drama surrounding Microsoft's new CEO has been something akin to the reality TV show ‘The Bachelor’. Who would be the perfect match for the rich, handsome, but somewhat socially awkward hunk?

In order to answer this question, it became publicly clear that there was confusion both within Microsoft and in the market in general as to what role the organisation would – indeed should – take in a rapidly changing technology market. The choice of Satya Nadella says as much about the company's final direction as it does about the man.


Read more


Conclusion: Software Asset Management (SAM) is not simply a set of technologies: it is a set of ongoing organisational practices and processes. Prior to embarking on SAM, organisations need to ensure that the foundations for a successful program are in place: identification and education of executive stakeholders, clarifying the scope of the SAM and setting clear and measurable objectives as well as identifying the sources and quality of information required.


Read more


Conclusion: Software Asset Management (SAM) is now a pressing issue for many organisations, due to growing complexities in vendor licensing as a result of the mix of: traditional per device, virtualisation, consumerisation, mobility, cloud services licensing models. SAM is no longer just a tracking service, but an essential part of financial and risk management. However, implementing SAM solutions must accompanied by the alignment of key business units. Processes – both for governance and automation – must be clearly defined between the key business units if SAM is to be of any lasting value.


Read more


Conclusion: Mobile devices have fundamentally different patching and upgrade cycles compared to the desktop models of which IT services staff are familiar. The key differences are: more frequent refresh cycles, cloud-based updates that generally are not manageable by the organisation, Internet-based rather than intranet-based delivery of upgrades. Managing mobile patches and upgrades will more about end-user communication, training, and change management than technology.


Read more