CA Deliver licensing: output management priced on capacity, not pages.

CA Deliver, now carried by Broadcom and written as Deliver, is the report distribution half of the Broadcom (CA) output management suite. It automates the day to day work of getting mainframe reports to the right people: it takes SYSOUT data, applies the right attributes and banner pages, and routes reports to their destinations, supporting basic reports that distribute an entire data set as one report and dynamic reports that read the report data itself to split a single report across different recipients page by page. It is almost always paired with CA View, which captures, compresses, and archives the report data for online retrieval, so the two together form the complete output management solution. CA Deliver is the routing engine; CA View is the repository. Most estates run them as a pair.

CA Deliver is licensed on mainframe capacity, historically in MIPS and increasingly in MSU, scaled to the machines or LPARs where it runs, and it commonly sits under the Broadcom consumption model: a contracted baseline at signature and a True Forward mechanism that escalates the charge if measured consumption rises above the baseline during the term. Because Deliver and CA View are typically licensed together, the commercial position is best read as a suite rather than two isolated products, and seeing what each part contributes matters at renewal. The capacity basis follows the systems where output management runs rather than the volume of reports distributed, so a high report count on a contained footprint is not the cost; the licensed capacity is.

Directional and pattern level. Confirm the capacity metric, the consumption baseline, and how the CA View and CA Deliver suite is licensed in your own Broadcom schedules before modeling a renewal.

The first driver is the contracted baseline, which the consumption model prices the term against and trues forward when capacity climbs. The second is the suite framing, since CA Deliver and CA View are usually bought together and a bundled position can obscure what each part actually costs and whether both are fully needed. The third is the system footprint, the LPARs where output management is authorized, which sets the capacity basis regardless of how many reports move through it. The fourth, the quiet one, is inertia: output management is old, stable infrastructure that almost nobody revisits, so a baseline and a footprint set years ago carry forward untouched while the rest of the estate changes around them. That stability is comfortable operationally and expensive commercially.

CA Deliver exposure is mostly capacity drift and suite scope. Common traps we see at pattern level:

Because CA Deliver is stable output management priced on a consumption baseline, the levers are about validating capacity and questioning the legacy suite. The five that pay:

Output management has alternatives, including IBM and other vendors' report distribution and archival tools and modern enterprise output and content management platforms that pull report data off the mainframe entirely, and for some estates the long term direction is to retire green screen report distribution in favor of digital delivery. But CA Deliver and CA View are usually woven into decades of batch jobs, distribution lists, and downstream processes, so a switch means untangling embedded dependencies and revalidating that every report still reaches its recipient, which keeps most estates on the incumbent. The practical leverage is to validate the capacity, unbundle the suite, and question whether the full legacy footprint is still required, while keeping a modernization path credible as a reference point. Where a content management or digital delivery program is already underway, output management belongs inside that decision.