Mainframe cost is consumption economics wearing a licensing costume: one badly timed batch window can set the software bill for the month. We tune the peaks, test the pricing models honestly, and negotiate the stack from evidence.
This engagement is bought by organizations running z systems whose Monthly License Charge software is priced on peak MSU consumption: the four hour rolling average sets the bill, one badly scheduled batch window sets the average, and nobody has revisited the workload placement since the last hardware refresh.
It fits infrastructure and finance leaders facing the Tailored Fit Pricing decision IBM presents as modernization, estates where ISV stacks priced on the same MSU curves multiply every inefficiency, and anyone whose hardware refresh is approaching with the software consequences unexamined.
Mainframe overspend concentrates in mechanisms most organizations stopped examining years ago:
Every mechanism is measurable from SCRT reports and consumption data, and most estates have never had all of them examined together. That combined view is the engagement.
The engagement follows the four workstreams of our mainframe optimization statement of work. The cost and consumption baseline is built from SCRT and contract data, the software levers are worked, the pricing models and ISV stack are analyzed, and the hardware strategy feeds the negotiation.
| Deliverable | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Cost and consumption baseline report | The full cost base mapped with peak MSU drivers identified per workload and the contractual position documented. |
| Software optimization report | Scheduling, capping, reporting hygiene, and offload actions quantified against the peaks that set the bill. |
| Pricing model and ISV paper | The MLC versus Tailored Fit Pricing verdict on your real profile, and the ISV stack analysis with negotiation positions. |
| Hardware strategy paper | Capacity, specialty engine, and refresh options analyzed for their software cost consequences. |
| Negotiation support to close | Written assessments of IBM and ISV proposals, timed against renewal and refresh decisions. |
Mainframe cost optimization sits in a gap: infrastructure teams understand the workloads but not the commercial mechanics, procurement understands contracts but not MSU curves, and IBM understands both, on its side of the table. This engagement puts both skills on yours.
The Tailored Fit Pricing decision is the expensive fork. TFP trades peak based pricing for committed consumption with growth assumptions built in, and IBM presents it as modernization because it usually pays IBM. Modeled honestly on your actual profile, the answer is sometimes yes, often no, and always worth knowing before signing.
The published record includes Mizuho Financial Group saving $71M on IBM mainframe licensing. Numbers that size exist because peak based pricing multiplies every inefficiency across MLC and the ISV stack simultaneously, and unwinding them pays across both.
The engagement runs fixed price, all inclusive, or on contingency at 25 percent of the savings we deliver: you keep 75 percent, and if we save you nothing, you pay nothing.
Mainframe and IBM cost outcomes on the record.
Mizuho Financial Group saved $71M on IBM mainframe licensing.
✓ Published case studyA financial institution cut its mainframe software bill by attacking the peaks that set it.
✓ Published case studyCharles Schwab saved $6M by eliminating shelfware and optimizing its IBM licensing.
✓ Published case studySamsung saved $23M through an IBM licensing internal assessment run with Redress Compliance.
Monthly License Charge software is priced on peak MSU consumption, typically the four hour rolling average, so the most intense window of the month sets the bill for everything. ISV products priced on the same curves multiply the effect across the stack.
The peak. Workload scheduling and tuning, capping strategy, and offload to specialty engines all attack the consumption window that sets the charge, and sub capacity reporting hygiene makes sure you are billed on what you configured rather than what IBM assumes.
Sometimes, and the only way to know is modeling it against legacy MLC on your actual consumption profile. TFP builds in committed growth, and IBM presents it as modernization because it usually pays IBM. The paper gives the verdict with the math attached.
It rides the same MSU curves, so every consumption improvement pays twice, and the ISV agreements carry their own negotiation levers. The analysis covers the major ISV stacks alongside the IBM position.
Processor capacity, specialty engines, and refresh timing set the ceiling of the whole cost structure: the wrong configuration makes every software optimization harder. The hardware paper analyzes the options for their software consequences before the refresh locks them in.
The recommendations respect operational reality: peaks are tuned by scheduling and placement, capping is designed against SLA constraints, and every action is specified with the platform team rather than around it.
SCRT reports over a representative period, MLC and IPLA contracts and invoices, ISV agreements, and configuration detail for the hardware analysis.
Fixed price, all inclusive, covering all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls, and email support, or contingency at 25 percent of the savings we deliver: you keep 75 percent, and if we save you nothing, you pay nothing.
Consumption baselined, the levers worked, the pricing models tested honestly, and the stack negotiated from evidence.
One letter a month. Negotiation moves, audit signals, and price book shifts.