Home / Case Studies / IBM ELA Right-Size Restructure
IBMInsuranceELA2025 Engagement

IBM ELA right-sized. $5.6M saved over the next term.

A North American insurance group entered the engagement with an IBM Enterprise License Agreement up for renewal and an Account team proposing a flat carry-forward at the same product set. After eleven weeks the group renewed at materially reduced scope, exited two product families that had moved to alternatives, and locked sub-capacity PVU rules into the contract instead of leaving them as policy.

Insurance company headquarters office
$5.6M
Term saving
34%
Reduction vs. opening proposal
2
Product families exited
11 wk
From kick-off to signature
The contract going in

An ELA carrying products the platform team had already left behind.

The client's IBM ELA had grown over three renewal cycles. Two product families — an integration suite and a legacy data product — had been replaced over the previous eighteen months. Internal owners for those products had moved on. ILMT compliance had drifted in the same period.

  • Five product families in the ELA. Two with replacement platforms already in production.
  • Sub-capacity PVU reliance with ILMT reporting gaps in the last two quarters.
  • The opening renewal proposed flat carry-forward at the existing product mix plus a 7% uplift.
IBM's opening position

Carry it forward. Add a Cloud Pak.

The proposal preserved the full product mix at a 7% uplift and offered to convert one product family into a Cloud Pak entitlement at favourable internal rates.

What we flagged

A Cloud Pak conversion that is funded by the carry-forward of two retired product families is not a saving. It is a re-priced commitment to something the client has already decided to move away from.

The work

Eleven weeks. Four workstreams.

The work split into four parallel tracks, all converging on the position paper for round three.

1. ILMT remediation

We worked with the IBM SAM team and platform engineering to close the ILMT reporting gap before round one. Without ILMT compliance, sub-capacity was off the table and the negotiating position was weaker.

2. Retirement evidence

We documented the two retired product families with deployment evidence, replacement-platform contracts and an internal decommissioning record. The evidence package became the basis for exiting them at renewal.

3. Cloud Pak reality check

We modelled the proposed Cloud Pak conversion against actual workload roadmap. Three of the five included products were not in the workload plan. The Cloud Pak became a smaller, scoped commitment rather than a carry-forward of legacy.

4. Sub-capacity contracting

The sub-capacity rules sat in IBM policy, not in the contract. We negotiated them into the renewed ELA as contractual terms with a defined remediation window if reporting gaps recur.

Lesson

An IBM ELA renewal is rarely a price negotiation. It is a scope and structure negotiation, with ILMT compliance as the floor underneath. Once the scope is right, the price follows.

The contract going out

Smaller. Contractual. Documented.

The renewed ELA carried three product families instead of five, included a scoped Cloud Pak entitlement tied to a documented workload roadmap, brought sub-capacity terms inside the contract, and replaced the policy-based ILMT remediation language with a contractual window.

$5.6M
Saved
Versus the flat carry-forward plus 7% uplift proposal, measured over the next term.
2
Families exited
Integration suite and legacy data product retired with documented evidence.
1
Scoped Cloud Pak
Cloud Pak entitlement tied to workload roadmap, not legacy carry-forward.
“The first proposal looked like a renewal. The advisor's reading of the same proposal was that we were funding two products our engineering team had stopped using. That framing changed the next three rounds.”
CIO · North American insurance group · Anonymised by client request
Related resources

More on IBM negotiation strategy.

← Back to all case studies

IBM ELA up for renewal?

Tell us the renewal date and the product families in scope. We will respond within one business day with the lead and the most relevant precedent.