Scott Bickley | Source | Advisory Fellow at Info-Tech Research Group

SB

Scott Bickley

Advisory Fellow at Info-Tech Research Group and 1 other company
On the record
Represented by:
Share profile 
Link:
Bio
Edit

Scott Bickley is a Practice Lead & Principal Research Director at Info-Tech Research Group, focused on Vendor Management and Contract Review. He also has experience in the areas of IT Asset Management (ITAM), Software Asset Management (SAM), and technology procurement, along with a deep background in operations, engineering, and quality systems management.

At Info-Tech, Scott provides IT leaders with the guidance, analysis, and tools they need to ensure their technology contracts are thoroughly vetted, benchmarked, and optimized. He has worked with clients to effectively drive down purchase costs and negotiate mutually agreeable terms and conditions, resulting in win-win vendor-customer relationships. He also assists clients in developing their approach to vendor management relations and software compliance defense actions, resulting in accountable partner relationships coupled with a defensible IT deployment environment. Prior to joining Info-Tech, Scott was responsible for the global software licensing and procurement at International Game Technology (IGT) and indirect procurement at Amazon.com.

Scott holds a B.S. in Justice Studies from Frostburg State University. He also holds active IAITAM certification designations of CSAM and CMAM and is a Certified Scrum Master (SCM).

Employment
Sign up to view all
Recent Quotes
Sign up to view all

  • OpenAI’s proposals for the U.S. AI Action Plan

    Scott Bickley, Advisory Fellow at Info-Tech Research Group, offers this perspective on the proposal:

    "OpenAI calling for federal-only oversight makes sense from a compliance perspective; it's more efficient and prevents a cobweb of individual state laws. But centralizing AI regulations could consolidate power into the hands of the companies that stand to gain the most. Their proposal hits all the notes as far as safety goes, but it lacks any substance. Is this really about responsible AI or is it more about favorable regulations for existing industry giants?

    Much of the proposal's messaging relies on the worn out "China will win if we don't act" argument. There are of course legitimate national security concerns, but this pushes aside the deeper and more immediate questions about AI's role in the economy, labor markets, and even democracy. Who benefits the most from this proposed vision? And probably even more important, who gets left behind?"

Headshots