A recent Ars Technica report found that large enterprises spend an average of 28% of their software budgets on upgrades, migrations, and licensing changes they didn't actively choose, and many IT leaders believe those changes reduce business value rather than improve it. Origina commissioned Censuswide to survey more than 2,000 senior IT decision-makers across the UK and US.

While every organization's circumstances differ, the findings align closely with what we see in the market.

Our Perspective

At Livingstone, we rarely encounter organizations that are resistant to change. Most are actively investing in transformation, cloud adoption, AI, automation, and modernization initiatives.

The challenge is not change itself.

The challenge is ensuring that technology decisions are driven by business requirements rather than vendor timelines, licensing changes, or support milestones.

Increasingly, organizations face a software, licensing, or support decision and are asked to evaluate only a single path forward. The result can be significant investment being committed before alternative options have been properly assessed.

Licensing Changes Should Be Modeled, Not Assumed

This is particularly evident in software licensing.

Whether it's a move to a new subscription model, a revised licensing metric, or a broader platform agreement, the assumption is often that migration is inevitable.

Our view is different.

Before moving from one licensing model to another, organizations should understand:

• The commercial impact over the next three to five years
• The operational implications of the change
• The value actually being gained
• The alternatives available
• Whether the proposed route aligns with business goals

Sometimes the recommended change is absolutely the right decision.

Sometimes modeling reveals a more cost-effective route that delivers the same business outcome.

The key is ensuring organizations have enough visibility to make an informed choice.

Support Strategy Is a Business Decision

The same principle applies to software support.

Many organizations approach an end-of-support milestone and assume an upgrade is their only realistic option.

In practice, the decision is often more nuanced.

Recent work with Origina helped create an IBM Effective Licensing Position (ELP), giving organizations visibility into what they currently own, what they are entitled to use, and what options are available moving forward.

Only with that visibility can organizations properly evaluate:

• Upgrading to new software versions or licensing metrics
• Adopting new software bundles
• Retaining existing platforms where they continue to meet business requirements
• Exploring third-party support options where appropriate

The right answer will differ for every organization. What matters is understanding the full range of options before a support deadline dictates the outcome.

Visibility Creates Leverage

The organizations achieving the strongest outcomes today have a clear understanding of their software estate, commercial position, and future requirements.

They are not simply managing licenses. They actively manage software, cloud, and AI investment as strategic business assets.

That requires independent analysis, commercial modeling and a clear understanding of the choices available.

The Livingstone View

We welcome the discussion Origina started, and Ars Technica highlighted, because it shines a light on a challenge many technology leaders will recognize. 

From our perspective, this is exactly why organizations are moving beyond traditional Software Asset Management and adopting a broader Software Investment Management (SIM) approach.

SIM is not just about managing licenses or maintaining compliance. It ensures every software, cloud, and AI investment aligns with business value. That means understanding the commercial implications of vendor decisions, evaluating alternative licensing and support strategies, and creating the visibility needed to make informed choices.
The organizations creating the greatest value today are not simply reacting to vendor-driven change. They actively manage software estates as investment portfolios, balancing cost, risk, performance, and innovation against measurable business outcomes.

The objective should never be simply keeping pace with vendor change.

The objective should be to ensure every software, cloud, and AI decision is a deliberate investment decision, backed by data, visibility, and a clear business case.

That's what Software Investment Management is designed to achieve.