UK University GIS Software Licensing: Navigating the New Landscape
The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software licensing landscape for UK universities underwent its most significant transformation in decades during 2024. With Esri’s fundamental shift away from concurrent licensing models and the evolution of the long-standing Chest Agreement framework, institutions across Britain are adapting to new realities that affect everything from budget planning to day-to-day software access management.
The End of an Era: Concurrent Licensing Retired
August 2024 marked a watershed moment for UK higher education GIS provision. After years of relying on concurrent use licenses that allowed flexible access based on simultaneous usage, universities faced a complete paradigm shift. ArcMap Advanced licenses are no longer provisioned under the Esri Chest Agreement, and both Concurrent Use licenses (EFL codes) and Single Use licenses (ESU codes) for ArcGIS Pro Advanced have been permanently retired.
This change represents more than a technical adjustment—it fundamentally alters how universities manage GIS access. Where institutions once purchased pools of concurrent licenses that could be shared dynamically across their user base, they must now commit to specific numbers of named user accounts, each tied to individual users through ArcGIS Online.
The transition affects universities of all sizes, from major research institutions with hundreds of GIS users across multiple departments to smaller colleges with focused geography or environmental science programs. Each must now carefully forecast their exact user requirements rather than relying on the flexibility that concurrent licensing provided during peak usage periods.
The Chest Framework: A Three-Decade Partnership
The Combined Higher Education Software Team (Chest), managed by Jisc, has served as the backbone of UK university software procurement since its establishment. The Esri-Chest partnership stands out as one of the most enduring relationships in the higher education technology sector, spanning over thirty years and covering uses from archaeology to zoology.
Chest agreements have historically provided UK universities with significant cost savings and administrative simplification. Rather than negotiating individual contracts with software vendors, institutions benefit from collective purchasing power and standardized terms. The Esri Chest Agreement became a cornerstone of this portfolio, rising to prominence as universities recognized both the cost benefits and the administrative convenience of centralized GIS procurement.
The framework typically operates on three-year cycles, providing budget predictability for institutions while allowing periodic updates to reflect technological changes and evolving user needs. Previous agreements covering 2017-2020 and 2020-2023 successfully adapted to include new Esri products and services as they emerged, maintaining the relevance of the partnership through significant technological evolution.
Implications of the Named User Model
The shift to named user licensing creates a cascade of operational changes that extend far beyond the IT department. Universities must now implement robust user management systems, develop policies for license allocation across departments, and create processes for handling staff and student turnover.
Budget planning becomes more complex under the new model. Where concurrent licensing allowed institutions to optimize costs based on actual usage patterns, named user licensing requires upfront commitments to specific user numbers. This creates particular challenges for institutions with seasonal research patterns, collaborative projects that involve external partners, or programs that experience variable enrollment.
The administrative burden also shifts significantly. IT departments must now manage individual user accounts, monitor usage to ensure compliance, and handle the ongoing process of adding and removing users as staff and students join and leave the institution. This represents a fundamental change from the relatively hands-off approach possible under concurrent licensing.
For academic departments, the changes create new considerations around resource allocation. Departments must now justify specific user numbers in advance rather than competing for access from a shared pool. This may lead to more strategic thinking about GIS training and usage but could also create barriers for exploratory or occasional use.
Alternative Pathways and Complementary Solutions
While the Esri-Chest Agreement remains the primary route for UK university GIS licensing, institutions are exploring complementary approaches to meet their full range of needs. Some universities are investigating increased use of open-source GIS solutions like QGIS to supplement their commercial software access, particularly for teaching environments where the specific commercial features may be less critical.
The Public Sector Geospatial Agreement provides another important component of the GIS ecosystem for UK universities, offering access to Ordnance Survey data that remains essential for many research and teaching applications. While this covers data rather than software, it represents part of the broader geospatial infrastructure that universities must coordinate.
Educational-specific programs continue to play a role, particularly for individual student access and smaller-scale departmental needs. The ArcGIS for Student Use program and similar initiatives provide cost-effective solutions for specific use cases while the institutional Chest Agreement handles the bulk of university requirements.
Financial Pressures and Strategic Responses
The licensing changes occur against a backdrop of significant financial pressure across UK higher education. Frozen domestic fee caps, inflation, and new restrictions on international student visas have created budget constraints that make software licensing decisions more critical than ever. Universities can no longer simply absorb licensing cost increases through general budget flexibility.
This financial reality is driving more sophisticated approaches to software procurement and management. Universities are conducting detailed usage audits to optimize their named user allocations, implementing more rigorous training programs to maximize the value from their licensed software, and exploring hybrid approaches that combine commercial and open-source solutions.
Some institutions are also reconsidering their GIS teaching and research strategies to ensure they align with their licensing investments. This might involve concentrating GIS activities in specific departments, developing shared service models across multiple institutions, or restructuring programs to make more intensive use of available licenses.
Looking Ahead: Adaptation and Innovation
As UK universities adapt to the new GIS licensing landscape, several trends are emerging. Institutions are investing more heavily in user training to maximize the return on their named user investments. They are also developing more sophisticated software asset management practices to ensure compliance and optimize usage.
The changes are also spurring innovation in how GIS education is delivered. Universities are exploring cloud-based delivery models, developing more intensive workshop-style training that makes efficient use of limited licenses, and creating hybrid curricula that expose students to both commercial and open-source GIS environments.
Collaboration between institutions is likely to increase as universities seek to share expertise in managing the new licensing models and explore opportunities for resource sharing. The collective bargaining power that made the Chest Agreement successful in the first place may extend to shared approaches for managing the challenges of named user licensing.
The transformation of UK university GIS licensing represents both a challenge and an opportunity. While the shift away from concurrent licensing creates immediate operational and financial pressures, it also forces institutions to think more strategically about their GIS provision and usage patterns.
Universities that successfully navigate this transition will likely emerge with more efficient, targeted approaches to GIS software provision. Those that struggle may find themselves constrained in their ability to deliver cutting-edge GIS education and research.
The long-standing Esri-Chest partnership provides a foundation of stability during this period of change, but success will ultimately depend on how well individual institutions adapt their internal processes and strategic approaches to the new reality of named user licensing. The next few years will reveal which approaches prove most successful in balancing the competing demands of cost control, user access, and educational excellence in the evolving landscape of UK university GIS provision.
