- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Tuesday
Hi all, I am having a real mind burp and struggling to find the answer. We have some old versions of software that we are still using. We still actively manage this software and so want to add the actual cost of non-compliance rather than average spend cost of the entitlement. We want to add an overriding cost of the latest version as this would be what we would have to purchase if we were non compliant.
How do I do this?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Tuesday
Hi Buddy
This is a really common SAM question, especially when your still running older versions.
OOTB, ServiceNow calculates non-compliance cost based on the entitlement you actually own, which is why the exposure often looks lower than reality. Unfortunately, there isnt a simple switch to say use the latest version price instead.
What I recommend you do is:
Leave the existing entitlement as-is so your ownership and historical spend stay accurate.
Model the risk separately by creating a second entitlement (or a clearly labeled record) that represents the latest version and current list price.
Use that record purely for audit exposure / what-if reporting, not for actual allocation.
Build reports or dashboards that calculate exposure using this “latest version” cost, rather than the OOTB non-compliance cost.
That way, you can still say:
“Based on what we own, we’re compliant or non-compliant,”
but also clearly show:
“If we were audited today, this is what it would actually cost us.”
This approach keeps SAM accurate from a licensing perspective while giving leadership a more realistic view of financial risk.
@andynewey - Please mark Solution Accepted and Thumbs Up if you found Helpful 🙂
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Tuesday
Hi Buddy
This is a really common SAM question, especially when your still running older versions.
OOTB, ServiceNow calculates non-compliance cost based on the entitlement you actually own, which is why the exposure often looks lower than reality. Unfortunately, there isnt a simple switch to say use the latest version price instead.
What I recommend you do is:
Leave the existing entitlement as-is so your ownership and historical spend stay accurate.
Model the risk separately by creating a second entitlement (or a clearly labeled record) that represents the latest version and current list price.
Use that record purely for audit exposure / what-if reporting, not for actual allocation.
Build reports or dashboards that calculate exposure using this “latest version” cost, rather than the OOTB non-compliance cost.
That way, you can still say:
“Based on what we own, we’re compliant or non-compliant,”
but also clearly show:
“If we were audited today, this is what it would actually cost us.”
This approach keeps SAM accurate from a licensing perspective while giving leadership a more realistic view of financial risk.
@andynewey - Please mark Solution Accepted and Thumbs Up if you found Helpful 🙂
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yesterday
That sounds really disheartening. Another case of SNforcing users to fudge the system to make it work!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yesterday
Hey Andy - I think this answer is AI-generated. You can add an over-riding cost on the software model record via the "Overide License Costs" tab in the related lists.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yesterday
@mikew_samexpert - That is far from accurate, and I would advise exercising care before making accusations...
