Concurrent licences showing Not Compliant

[Mike88]

We have a couple of applications which are concurrently licenced.
I've created the necessary software models and entitlements without issue however these all show as Not Compliant in the licence workbench.

I can't set these to named user as (by it's nature) the concurrent licence we hold allows for few connections than we have installations.

Is there a way OoTB to make these show as Compliant other then setting the model to not be Licence Under Management?

[dreinhardt]

Hi @Mike88,

I created an entitlement in my PDI with metric group "Concurrent license" and metric "Floating". After the reconciliation the software model is shown as compliant, because I didn't manage any inventory data for this software models. Your case sounds a bit different - your model is "Not compliant", because a few software installations where detected matching the created software model? Please share a few more details about your setup.

By default, the feature unlimited license is limited to a few license types (e.g., Per User, Per Device, ...) - Unlimited software licenses (servicenow.com),

you could edit the UI policy "Show/Hide unlimited license on license type and metric change" and add the missing combination to enable the field and set your entitlement to unlimited.

Best, Dennis

[Mike88]

Thanks Dennis
I'll pre-empt my reply with saying that we're still very new to ServiceNow so sorry if any of the below isn't relevant or simply wrong.

Ours is a very "out of the box" instance of ServiceNow with hardly any customisation so I don't believe our internal support team have completed any UI policy changes so far. 

When the entitlement was created by our integrator we understand that it was created using the standard /inbuilt ServiceNow Software Model creator and then the standard /inbuilt ServiceNow Software Entitlement creator using all the 'default' settings and policies.

A custom discovery map was created as there was not a pre-existing one in ServiceNow which is set to simply look for the software/product without specified version or Edition.

All the default values on the model and entitlement appear to have also been left in place with the exception of the Metric Group being set to Concurrent Licences and the Licence Metric being set to Floating.

We have (for context) 26 licences but 80+ installations.
With the licence we can have any number of installs and have a hard limit of 26 connection as such should not be able to go over. I've been tempted to uncheck the box for Licence Under Management however it seems like a fudge rather than an actual solution.

If any screenshots are needed just let me know 

[Anna-Marie Chri]

Hi @Mike88 

So you could set your license agreement to Enterprise Agreement for those entitlements and the applications using the concurrent metric group should show up as Compliant even if you aren't. 

(A possible workaround to managing compliance status for concurrent licenses with Software Asset Mana...)

OR,

Quick question, is this Engineering software? If yes, do you have a license server for this software and do you have the Engineering Publisher Pack installed?  Typically ServiceNow won't do compliance for Concurrent licenses OOTB. You would need to setup the license server to be able to calculate the usage and make sure you don't have more than 26 users connecting at any one time. I'm not familiar which the license server setup but typically these are your 2 options. 

Cheers! 

[Mike88]

I'm not certain about all instances, but for the software we've queried, there's a hard limit on concurrent users. We can have unlimited installations, but only a fixed number of users can access it at once, so it should always show compliant. The issue is that Purchase Rights (number of concurrent users allowed on) are lower than recorded installs, causing ServiceNow to mark it as non-compliant. While we considered checking the "ignore installs" box, we still want to track users to ensure only authorized people access the software.

This solution may not fit all cases, but it's what ServiceNow suggested for my issue.

As for your second question, defining Engineering software is tricky. Personally, I don't consider the application as such, but I haven't found a definitive list of criteria to classify it.

To add, I’ve tried the suggested changes, but the issue persists.