Why is the Status of a Product Compliant if negative balance in the Position Report?

Elie Baho
Tera Contributor

‎03-19-2024 06:03 PM

Hello, I just finished the SAM Implementer course for the second time and I still can't wrap my head around 2 things:

 

In this example, why is SQL Server Enterprise 2016 COMPLIANT if it has a negative license balance?

 

ElieBaho_0-1710896031671.png

 

The Compliant or NON Compliant is based on what indicator then?

 

2nd question:

 

When a product has way more than enough license entitlements but the Licenses required is equal to zero and it has many Unlicensed Installs, why aren't the unlicensed Installs calculated in the Licenses required total?  The normalization is completed on the Discovered Models.

 

Is it expecting a different license metric to cover these Unlicensed installs?  If so, where do we see the details of the Unlicensed Installs expected license metric that'll cover them?  If I display this field in the details, it's empty...

0 Helpfuls
  • 910 Views
4 REPLIES 4

peterikeda1
Tera Expert

‎12-06-2024 10:26 AM

The agreement type of the entitlement can determine the compliance status:
Solved: SAM Pro Entitlement Agreement Type: Generic and EL... - ServiceNow Community

 

Although I'm dealing with a similar situation now where even the agreement type doesn't explain away this discrepancy. If I'm able to figure out and I'll update this thread

dreinhardt
Kilo Patron

‎12-06-2024 12:01 PM - edited ‎12-06-2024 12:01 PM

Hi @Elie Baho,

#1) You're right, by default the result should be "Not Compliant". I can assume the following options ...

- The entitlement agreement type is also responsible for this in case of Microsoft. As soon the type is an enterprise agreement the result will always be compliant, but since W.DC/Xanadu a little icon with a true up note is added.

- the SAM simulator is not working as it should be.

 

#2) When a product has way more than enough license entitlements but the Licenses required is equal to zero and it has many Unlicensed Installs, why aren't the unlicensed Installs calculated in the Licenses required total?  The normalization is completed on the Discovered Models.

- Please check the "install requiring actions" to get more insights into this

- If it's the simulator, looks like again an issue. By default , each unlicensed install is counted by "licenses required"

 

Best, Dennis

 

Should my response prove helpful, please consider marking it as the Accepted Solution/Helpful to assist closing this thread.
0 Helpfuls

Elie Baho
Tera Contributor
In response to dreinhardt

‎12-16-2024 12:51 PM

As much as I would love to go back to this example, it's been over 9 months since I opened this thread.   I don't have access to these license workbench results anymore.

 

Weather the issue is a simulator or a real life example, why is it fundamentally this confusing?  A license compliance position should be simple.

0 Helpfuls

LygiaF
Tera Expert
In response to Elie Baho

3 hours ago - last edited 3 hours ago

Hi Elie!

 

This is something I have also been investigating a bit more, and this is additional information I found from my search. From all of the information checked, this one is true for most of the scenarios I have seen: https://support.servicenow.com/kb?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB1444264#:~:text=Description,R...

 

By the way, this is a compilation of searches, so please dig in further!

 

Other areas impacting this:

 

In ServiceNow Software Asset Management (SAM) Pro, a software product can appear "Compliant" on the License Usage Dashboard despite having negative entitlement counts due to specific configuration settings and reconciliation logic designed to handle enterprise agreements or specific software types. 
Here are the primary reasons for this, based on ServiceNow's out-of-the-box behavior:
 
 
1. Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs)
  • What happens: If an entitlement is marked with the Agreement Type "Enterprise License Agreement (ELA)", SAM Pro treats this as a compliant, "unlimited" or "blanket" license, even if the actual number of installs exceeds the rights listed.
  • Result: The product status will show as Compliant, even if the license usage shows a negative number (e.g., 500 rights owned, 600 installed = -100 rights, but ELA = Compliant).
  • Purpose: This allows organizations to manage complex, enterprise-wide contracts without causing a constant "non-compliant" alert for every extra install. 
 
2. Reconciliation Logic and "Software Product" vs. "Software Model"
  • What happens: The dashboard shows compliance at the Product level. However, a Product may contain multiple Software Models (e.g., different versions or editions).
  • Result: If a product has multiple models, and all unlicensed installs belong to a model covered by an ELA or a valid blanket agreement, the parent product result may be marked as "compliant," even if other models under it are not technically compliant.
  • Caveat: Prior to the Washington DC release, this logic only checked for enterprise agreements on installs, not necessarily on other entities like subscriptions or CALs. 
 
3. "Unlicensed Installs" vs. "Compliant" Product 
  • What happens: A product can have a positive compliance status while still showing "unlicensed installs" or "non-compliant" on the License Workbench for specific, isolated models, due to a delay in the overall product status update, or if the "License under management" is set to false. 
4. Known Issues with Sub-Types
  • What happens: In some older versions (before Zurich/Washington), if the software installed is classified as a "component," "patch," or other unlicensable sub-type, it might be improperly included in the calculation. 
 
How to Investigate
To understand why a product is compliant despite a negative balance:
  1. Check the Agreement Type: Open the entitlement records and look at the "Agreement Type" field. If it is "Enterprise", that is the reason.
  2. Use the License Workbench: Drill down into the product to view the Software Model Results and License Metrics to see which specific model is causing the negative number.
  3. Check for "License Under Management": Ensure the software model is not set to License under management = false. 
 
 
 
 
 
Hope this helps!!
0 Helpfuls