Case studies

The record, told at the pattern level.

We never publish client names, figures from individual deals, or anything a vendor could trace. What we can show you is the recurring shape of the work: the situation, the levers, and where the number landed. Across 500+ engagements, the patterns repeat.

Pattern 01

The Broadcom (CA) renewal uplift

RenewalPortfolio bundleMulti year term

A large bank received a renewal proposal from Broadcom (CA) carrying an uplift far above its historical run rate, anchored to a portfolio bundle that included product families the bank had stopped using years earlier. The proposal arrived late in the term, with the clock favoring the vendor.

We baselined actual deployment against the bundle, built a credible displacement plan for the components with alternatives, and reopened the conversation around what the bank actually runs. The renewal closed with the unused families removed, consumption protections added, and a reduction inside our typical 20 to 35% band.

What moved the number

  • Deployment evidence that separated used products from shelfware inside the bundle
  • A documented alternative for the displaceable components, priced and timed
  • Term protections: caps on uplift, MSU growth bands, and exit rights at renewal

How we run Broadcom (CA) renewals →

Pattern 02

The IBM sub-capacity audit

Audit defenseSCRTSettlement

An insurer received an IBM license review notice after a mainframe upgrade. The initial findings assumed full capacity charges for periods where sub-capacity reporting had gaps, a position that would have multiplied the exposure.

We took over the audit channel, recomputed the SCRT and R4HA positions independently from the SMF data, and challenged the methodology behind the gap periods. The recalculated findings came in at a fraction of the opening claim, and the settlement traded the remainder for terms the insurer wanted in its next agreement anyway.

What moved the number

  • Independent recalculation of peak MSU consumption from raw SMF records
  • A methodology challenge on the full capacity assumption for reporting gaps
  • Settlement structured as future contract value instead of a back charge

How we defend IBM audits →

Pattern 03

The BMC suite untangle

Contract reviewMSU metricsConversion ratio

A retailer running BMC AMI Ops and Control-M found its costs rising faster than its workload. The contract priced the suite on peak MSU with a MIPS to MSU conversion ratio fixed years earlier, against hardware that no longer matched the assumption.

A clause level review surfaced the mismatch. We renegotiated the metric definitions, reset the conversion basis to current hardware, and rebuilt the suite composition around what the retailer actually deploys. The corrected baseline carried into the renewal and compounded across the term.

What moved the number

  • Metric definitions reset: peak measurement window and conversion ratio aligned to current reality
  • Suite composition rebuilt around deployed products only
  • Renewal caps that stopped the drift from recurring

How we review BMC contracts →

Pattern 04

The Software AG legacy estate audit

Audit defenseAdabas & NaturalEntitlement history

A government agency running Adabas and Natural since the 1980s received an audit notice referencing capacity growth on contracts amended a dozen times across four decades. Nobody on the current team had seen the original agreements.

We reconstructed the entitlement history from the full amendment chain, validated the measured capacity against the license files, and found that much of the claimed gap rested on an interpretation the contract language did not support. The matter settled quietly, with the agency keeping its modernization options open.

What moved the number

  • The complete amendment chain reconstructed before responding to the auditor
  • Capacity measurement validated independently against the MSU bound license files
  • A settlement that preserved exit and modernization rights

How we defend Software AG audits →

Pattern 05

The MSU peak that set the bill

Cost optimizationR4HAzIIP offload

A logistics company watched its IBM monthly license charges climb while business volume stayed flat. The cause was a scheduling collision: batch jobs stacking into the same four hour window and dragging the rolling four hour average peak upward month after month.

We profiled the R4HA drivers per LPAR, resequenced the batch window, applied soft capping where it was safe, and moved eligible work to zIIP engines where consumption does not count against monthly license charges. The peak came down, and the renewal that followed priced against the corrected baseline.

What moved the number

  • Peak driver analysis that found the schedule collision behind the R4HA spike
  • Soft capping and batch resequencing applied without touching service levels
  • zIIP eligible work moved off the general processors before the next baseline

How we optimize MSU costs →

The record

Every pattern above has repeated across hundreds of engagements. Yours will fit one of them.

$180M+

Mainframe spend negotiated on the buyer side

500+

Engagements delivered since 2019

20 to 35%

Typical reduction negotiated on renewal spend

Get the patterns as they develop: The Mainframe Licensing Brief.

Vendor renewal behavior, audit campaigns, and pricing model changes, reported from the buyer side as we see them across live engagements. No vendor sponsorship, no resale of your details.

Audit notice or renewal under 18 months out? We mobilize within 48 hours.

Get expert help

Your situation fits a pattern we have run before.

Get expert help