About jlvalen

Povilas · ‎Jan 12, 2022

After more than a year I decided that the case that originated from this topic should be closed. To be honest, there hasn't been much progress throughout this time. In my opinion, recognition of IBM Business Automation Workflow editions is still incorrect, but it seems that additional information from IIM can't be used to improve accuracy. In addition to this, content team states that it's impossible to unlink installer evidences from applications and leave only file evidences, because that would impact recognition to other customers and suggests to do that manually. That wouldn't be a problem, but since installer evidences are causing inaccuracy in the first place, it's quite unclear what benefit other customers have from those installer evidences. A more general question - is anyone else having issues with how IBM applications are recognized in Flexera? To this day IBM relies a lot on file evidences, which define application, version and edition, but for some reason it's very hard to convince content team that file evidences are important. Generally, when the new version/edition is added to ARL, it only comes with installer evidences mapped to it, even though previous version/edition had only file evidences or both installer and file evidences. This results in either manual evidence management or raising a case to content team which might take up to a few months to resolve.

jlvalen · ‎Aug 31, 2021

Thanks for checking. That works but does require involvement from business partners. Worse yet, we found a few instances where the file was stored as part of a Windows profile so the only person who could find the file was someone with Admin credentials. Apparently the software was installed by someone who no longer exists in our domain, so the file was hidden to other users. Ugh

Woo_Lam · ‎May 28, 2020

What you mean " SCCM does supply user data from Active Directory which impacted us"? What is the impact?

jlvalen · ‎Oct 02, 2019

I submitted this issue to Natalie Lias at Flexera yesterday following the User Group meeting. I see it as two issues: 1. If you create a local ARL, when the Flexera ARL comes out, it often accurately reports the number of devices, BUT evidence used in the local ARL is left as unrecognized when you delete the duplicate local ARL. Only solution is to manually add this making the Flexera ARL a Flexera (Extended) ARL This makes extra work and makes it appear that you have messed with the ARL even though the evidence should be encompassed by the published evidence rule, i.e., version 8.5.% as noted below. 2. There would be no need to create a local ARL if Flexera published an ARL for new releases with in days or even proactively rather than making customers wait a few months for it to be recognized.

ChrisG · ‎Apr 23, 2019

Your idea of adding some custom fields to track relevant information sounds good. I have worked with one organization who take a feed of data from FlexNet and use that to automatically raise tickets to follow up on unauthorized installations. While this sort of approach does involve some scripting and specialized processing, having it automated is a powerful technique to drive behaviors and improve compliance.

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	‎Mar 23, 2023 11:27 AM

Re: Source for IBM Installation Manager evidence

Re: How to find InstallAnywhere XML file path

Re: SCCM integration with FNMS: pros/cons

Re: Merging local Applications with ARL

Re: Tracking open software management issues, like Unauthorized Software or Licenses at Risk?

Re: How to find InstallAnywhere XML file path

How to find InstallAnywhere XML file path

Re: Source for IBM Installation Manager evidence

Re: Source for IBM Installation Manager evidence

Re: Source for IBM Installation Manager evidence

Re: Merging local Applications with ARL

Re: SCCM integration with FNMS: pros/cons

Tracking open software management issues, like Unauthorized Software or Licenses at Risk?