Many organizations rarely underestimate licenses; they build them up as a matter of caution. New employees are automatically assigned the same rights as their predecessors, temporary project extensions often remain, and exceptions become the norm. Over time, this creates an environment designed for maximum security rather than functional necessity. Manufacturers contribute to this by now offering software in comprehensive suites and through subscriptions.

Defining roles instead of functions

A job description tells you little about software usage. Two employees with the same title can need completely different applications. Traditional departmentalizations are therefore ineffective for license management. By looking at actual behavior—how someone works, not what their role is called—a more realistic picture emerges. It often turns out that a small group makes intensive use of extensive functionality, while the majority can work with basic functionality without sacrificing productivity.

Analyze usage and determine necessity

The goal isn't simply to save money, but to understand it. The central question becomes: "What stops work if a license is missing?" This distinction determines the lower limit of license requirements. This is where the structural savings lie: not in discounts, but in proper allocation.

The real minimum

The minimum license requirement isn't a snapshot, but a model. It takes growth, turnover, and changes into account without automatically adding additional licenses. Organizations that get this right save money not just once, but every year.

Would you like to know how many licenses you really need instead of historically grown numbers?
Contact us to find out how we can find this out together.