Friends, Snowmans, Countrymen, lend me your ears!
I'm inputting our Microsoft ESA renewal into Snow and I've come against a problem with assigning the Windows 10 Enterprise licenses. They are upgrade licenses that need to be assigned to an organisation node and subsequently linked to their base licenses. That's all fine, however, the number of base licenses is lower than the amount that we have as per our renewal.
Let's say for example, there were 4000 last year and this year there are 5000. We would have 1000 additional licenses. The problem is, when I select those 4000 as the base licenses to upgrade, I have the following scenario.
- If I try to enter 4000 to upgrade, it tells me that there are not enough licenses specified to upgrade. I understand that this is because Snow is looking for 5000 base licenses to upgrade so it is essentially seeing this as a shortfall of 1000 assignments.
- If I try to enter 5000, which would be the new increased figure in this scenario, I'm told that this is an invalid quantity and rightly so, there are only 4000 base licenses so how can I add 5000.
Now, I get what it's telling me here and the obvious question is "well, if you only had 4000 base licenses why would you need more than 4000 upgrade licenses?" and therefor what Snow is telling me is logically correct. However these upgrade licenses don't just cover existing licenses, they also cover OEM license upgrades. So these additional 1000 licenses may be covering new hardware for example. This is how the SKU is sold.
I really don't want to split the licenses because that would be technically inaccurate. We bought x amount of this particular SKU so to add 4000 upgrade licenses and 1000 "standard" licenses would be less than ideal.
I fear I'm fighting a losing battle here and that I've probably already answered my own question but, is there a better solution out there than to split these licenses because I like to keep everything as accurate as possible. The SKU is linked to the license, the license is linked to the sub agreement (year 1,2,3) and the sub agreement is linked to the master agreement. Am I getting a little too obsessive compulsive over this? Has the heat melted my brain and I've just completely overlooked something simple?
Thanks for sticking with me and I'm very interested to hear any responses!