ITAM - SAM Pro - Packs related query

[Shan9]

Team,

Hope you are doing fine.

I would like to know about the below query in SAM Pro for other than Microsoft Core & CAL license metric products.

Use Cases	Total Rights	No.of.rights per pack	No.of.packs	Installs	Unit Cost($)	Total Cost($)	Compliance(rights)	Additional Licenses
Case 1	400	200	2	500	10	20	-100	-0.5
ServiceNow	400			500	0.05	20	-100	-0.5

Here,

Case 1:  we bought 2 packs, each of $10 where each pack comes with 200 rights. So, the total rights 400. Let’s say we had installs of 500, after reconciliation, we identified that additional 100 rights need to buy i.e., 1 license pack (as we cannot buy half pack) Amount: $10

ServiceNow: In SAM Pro, with the same example, I’ll update ‘Purchased rights’ as 400(rights per pack* no.of.packs) and ‘0.05’(20/400) under ‘Unit Cost’ in entitlement form. After running reconciliation, we got to know that out of compliance - 100 rights. Here, amounts show as 100(additional rights) * 0.05(unit cost),

Amount = $5

In SAM Pro, the above way is the only option. But client wants to have the Unit cost as invoice value, which is $ 10.

Please suggest how to proceed.

#itam #sam

Thanks

[jaheerhattiwale]

@Shan9 If they have purchased one license for $10 then 1pack will be of $2000. So "Total cost" will be $2000.

If they are ok with total cost then we can add unit cost of $10 right.

After recon the output will be $10 * 100 = $1000.

I think you must explain them this.

[Shan9]

@jaheerhattiwale I explained that already but they want to have the different calculation, like pack*cost. And even after the reconciliation, they want to have the results with same calculation

[jaheerhattiwale]

@Shan9 I think changing the logic may affect many places. And most of the scripts we cannot even see, no question of changing it. So we should use it as is.

We can create some custom tables to store pack wise costs.

[dgros]

Just replying to say that I am also asking the same question. In our case I am attempting to get our SQL licenses loaded correctly and this incorrect cost calculation is causing a lot of confusion. The only solution that mathematically works is to cut the price in half, but surely that's not how this is intended to work?