Cost for a User Licence Potentially Triples in RM 8.1
Depending on how you use TRIM, the cost per licence can more than triple. We implemented TRIM as the repository for all electronic documents 13 years ago. It means that users only have to know one system for storing, organising and finding their documents. They have had no access to the Windows file system from the Office products Save and Open dialogues. (that also changes with RM 8.1 and Office 2013 but that is another matter)
We use record type access controls to secure corporate records and allow flexibility with personal documents. i.e. normal users are restricted to what they can do with corporate information but have full control over their own stuff.
Consequently, the Information Worker (which most people are) has Delete permission. In RM8.1 only the Records Manager profile has delete permission. There is no way to increase permissions for a profile, only decrease them. In their wisdom, HP has decided to have a sliding scale whereby they charge more for users who can do more. A great way to discourage the use of the system is to force them to use an alternative some of the time.
We are not the first to be concerned by this move as is evident in the following HP report:
QCCR2D51017 Documentation - New user types and permission changes not documented
The removal of the "Custom" user type. From 8.1 onwards, all users will be based on one of the standard TRIM user types. The only extra customization that can be done for that user is to remove permissions that are normally available for a user of that type. So, if you wanted to give a person with the user type ‘Information Worker’ the ability to Delete Records, you would have to elevate that person to a Records Manager, then remove the other extra permissions that they got along with that increase in capability
While the conversion from TRIM to Records Manager upgrades the existing licences (we have 2400) to the highest permission level, the problem is in the long term. So we will be forced to examine alternative EDMS offerings for a more customer focused system unless HP remove this impediment.
Having fought many battles over the past 13 years promoting TRIM in the organisation, I would be personally disappointed to see it replaced. I therefore urge anyone who will be adversely affected by this change to contact their account manager (as we have) to express their concern.
This sort of feedback is always good to provide before it becomes a problem, hopefully the new licensing model can be refined as more customers discover how it will affect the cost of using HPRM.
As an alternative, there are some 3rd party add-ins which allow users to 'Delete' records with added functionality over the standard TRIM 'Delete' function.
It might be worth investigating this if you already have business practices that allows users to 'delete' in TRIM. 🙂
NOT A HP EMPLOYEE
Peter , you Organisation being a large Customer (2400 seats) for HP TRIM, I suggest to discuss this with your HP TRIM Rep and HP TRIM Executive. I guess they can certainly assist you with discussions to provide you with various options.
Hi Pete, thank you very much for your comments on the new pricing for HP Records Manager 8.1 As the person who designed the program, I appreciate your comments; however, there is no way that the price will "triple" as you assert under the new program. For 95 percent of new users, the price per adding new seats will drop dramatically against the published list price for HP TRIM and HP Records Manager 8.0. I will be glad to demonstrate this to any of our customers.
The new pricing program provides tremendous flexibility by allowing organizations to significantly expand the number of users as well as address a primary objection that we heard over and over again from our customers. Few customers objected to paying the single user price for someone touching the system four times a day. However, there was significant objection to paying the same price for someone who touches the solution 4 times a month or just required read-only access. That is why we developed different user types to meet existing and emerging market demands.
The user permission roles were vetted by records managers, who provided us insight that supplemented our own knowledge base. We purposely did not allot "delete records" permission to a knowledge worker because of the dangers and potential of spoliation, where workers who were creating content could go in and delete records without permission. We left the delete role to the appropriate person, the records coordinator -- who in most organizations, is responsible for administering, managing and overseeing the records program.
We believe -- and the market is responding -- that the new pricing program is a good one and will help all customers more cost effectively expand their footprint of HP Records Manager. This is not just due to the new user types, but also because we have folded previous extra-cost modules for our market leading SharePoint integration and our enhanced workflow. For upgrade customers, we have significantly lowered the cost of expanding the footprint while preserving all of the rights and entitlements of the existing licensed user.
Should you or any of our customers have questions regarding our new pricing program, please reach out directly to your HP account manager or to me by sending me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Again, we appreciate your comments. Thanks for being a loyal HP RM/TRIM user. We are working on your behalf to help you better manage your information footprint for control, compliance and cost.
Thanks for response David
It looks like my main point may have been missed. We use TRIM as an electronic document repository for all content, not just corporate records. (This role can be seen to be encouraged in TRIM 7.3 by the facility to supress the Windows Open and Save dialogues in the client configuration options.) However, the consequence with the RM 8.1 model is that every user will need to have a profile of Records Manager in order to delete their own content (there is no possibility of them deleting corporate records).
We understand that our existing licences will be upgraded without any increase in costs. However, the quote from HP for a new user with the profile of Records Manager is more than three times what we are currently paying per user with TRIM 7.3.4. This becomes significant over time, particularly with the maintenance.
So your new pricing program is forcing us to make a change.
Options are installing a third party work around, giving users an alternative repository or replacing TRIM with another product.
It is not my intention to conduct a public discussion on this; I am simply attempting to apprise people who use TRIM in the role that we do, of the consequences of upgrading to RM 8.1 in terms of cost.
While I see your point, in my opinion this may be more of a driver for the conventional records system usage than a stripping of powers.
The Delete function is a pseudo-"bad word" in the records world, and the intention is that the destructive capability is in the hands of the few, with business processes wrapped around it.
If there is significant deletion need across 2400 users, my concern would be "is there a process in place that's causing so much need for deletion in the records environment?" Or, is the environment attempting to use the records system as a non-records collaboration space?
If you're users are looking for a managed working space for their non-record documents, and aren't considering/using SharePoint, there's a few other options out there. Having users work in shared drive spaces is seen as undesirable because it lacks organization, however this is where tools like ControlPoint and IUS come in (both of which integrate with HP TRIM/HP RM). These tools allow you to organize and discover content, auto-classify, and direct actual records content to your records repository (ie - TRIM/RM).
The object is to give the user just one system for storing all their documents. This means they only need to know one set of tools.
The user chooses whether to save their document as personal or corporate - which determines what control they have over the document thereafter.
Why force the user to choose between two completely different systems? A sure fire way of putting them off from using a records management system.
One last point, storing a document in TRIM doesn't make it compliant with record keeping standards.
When we selected TRIM as our EDMS, an important factor was its ability to provide a single repository for all electronic documents. HP have taken it out of that market with the new licencing regime.
The other option is to come up with workarounds by hiding what is actually happening from the user (when they want to delete an item, change it's metadata or access control) but that requires work and ongoing maintenance by records staff. Additional cost to the organisation initiated by HP.
Pete -- My suggestion to you is to contact your HP account manager. And that account manager can reach out to me to better understand what is going on with your quote. I don't have a view into your discounts, so it is hard for me to respond. But at list price, there is now possible way you are paying three times more because the list price is not 3x or even 2x the amount. The records manager seat is very close to the old legacy user price. Furthermore, for the vast majority of users, the list price is LESS than what the legacy seat cost.
Regarding your user rights to delete, the Knowledge Worker does have the right to delete content, as long as it has not been recorded as a record. Once the record button has pushed, you are correct, only the Records Coordinator role can delete a records, which is a best practice method.
I would strongly urge you to contact your account manager and then have that account manager reach out to me to discuss your specific situation. Thanks again for your passionate interest here.
We have (as I advised in my original post) taken this up with our account manager and are close to an amicable resultion on price.
My original warning remains for any organistation that uses the system as a repository for everything, not just records. (If any such organisations exist.) Unless you make special arrangements, you will face a massive price increase to retain the full functionality such a facility requires. Conversly, if you only store records in the system, your cost could well go down.