InRule vs. OpenLM for Engineering Licensing

With InRule, we are expecting to be able to move business logic out of the developer domain and back into the business domain. Business logic is currently captured in UI (data validation) and middleware layers. These are areas in any application where leveraging InRule's capabilities allow for changes in business logic to be made with little or no IT involvement.

OpenLM can simplify the reporting of complex licenses with multiple toolboxes or products on one server. It covers most of our license server types, but not all. The academic version is reasonably priced (e.g. for educational institutions) giving 90% of the features, however setting it up on-premise was more complex than our original pilot would suggest. We couldn't do without it now.

• It is easy to tweak business rule parameters.
• Create new logic with low barriers.

Incentivized

• Peak concurrent license use for any period of time, often less than expected, saves unnecessary over purchase.
• Denials of license, can quickly see where a license is not working, say, after an upgrade.
• Comparison of license utilisation (% when near the limit).
• Quick check of expiring licenses.

• Needs more debugging capabilities.

• You can share a link to a dynamic report (e.g. the last 365 days). The URL is very long but it can be used with a 3rd party short URL utility and shared with users.
• Upgrading to the latest version took a long time to troubleshoot, which left a short gap in the saved data.

InRule's Support Portal provides a "one stop shop" for submitting support questions, accessing training information, managing licenses, and getting updates on InRule's roadmap.

InRule offers a more organized software design, a well-structured framework in design, and is easier for new users to start contributing given documentation. Drools is spreadsheet-based and lacking the capability to do really advanced pseudo-programming.

Incentivized

X-Formation, OpenIT, JTB, Sassafras either more expensive for the particular task of managing and monitoring concurrent licenses, or they had a different set of features (such as Sassafras K2/Keyserver also for remote access)

• It is always reliable and efficient.
• Has won customers over.

• The academic version has paid for itself handsomely, including our setup costs. The ongoing strategic information saves costs.