Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue
-
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
When I worked for a consulting company 15 years ago, a tech was sent out to a client's site to install a network printer. The printer itself didn't have a network port, so they had to use a JetDirect box.
The original tech went out and spent two days trying to get it to work and failed, he then elicited help from another tech, who after another day also couldn't get it to work. Day four they ask a third tech who comes in and has it installed in about 20 mins.
What should that client be billed?
I can tell you that all three techs submitted their billing, and the consulting company sent a bill for 24.5 hours of billing to the client. This was north of $3000.
The client demanded a meeting and refused to pay it. I don't know what the ultimate billing amount was, but it wasn't the full bill.
Why wouldn't the customer be billed in full? I get that $3,000 is a lot to install a printer. But if there were existing issues, either with the location, the hardware itself, or some knowledge of the infrastructure that wasn't know, that needed three techs then the billing would make sense. If this was internal IT then they would have payed a lot more for the troubleshooting time and the time/money it would have taken to go to an outside vendor (or support) to set it up anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
The client demanded a meeting and refused to pay it. I don't know what the ultimate billing amount was, but it wasn't the full bill.
This is where "under the hood" transparency can be a bad thing. It really took that long to fix and would have been the same had it been internal staff. The firm seems to have handled it badly, and sometimes time has to be eaten, but that things are difficult and need multiple attempts, multiple eyes and such is normal IT. That the third tech did it in twenty minutes is based partially off of two other techs accumulating lots of info for the third tech before they even started, for example. It's impossible in IT to say "well it should have only taken X amount of time."
LOL - in that particular case, I know that the first two tech brought nothing of value to the third tech. The first two should have even been employed as IT consultants - the third had a lot of previous experience doing exactly that job, so he was able to get it working super fast. Someone completely unfamiliar with JetDirect boxes, who had to read the directions fully might have taken 2-3 hours, but definitely not 4 days worth of billing time.
-
@coliver said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
When I worked for a consulting company 15 years ago, a tech was sent out to a client's site to install a network printer. The printer itself didn't have a network port, so they had to use a JetDirect box.
The original tech went out and spent two days trying to get it to work and failed, he then elicited help from another tech, who after another day also couldn't get it to work. Day four they ask a third tech who comes in and has it installed in about 20 mins.
What should that client be billed?
I can tell you that all three techs submitted their billing, and the consulting company sent a bill for 24.5 hours of billing to the client. This was north of $3000.
The client demanded a meeting and refused to pay it. I don't know what the ultimate billing amount was, but it wasn't the full bill.
Why wouldn't the customer be billed in full? I get that $3,000 is a lot to install a printer. But if there were existing issues, either with the location, the hardware itself, or some knowledge of the infrastructure that wasn't know, that needed three techs then the billing would make sense. If this was internal IT then they would have payed a lot more for the troubleshooting time and the time/money it would have taken to go to an outside vendor (or support) to set it up anyway.
In some cases I would definitely agree with that - but in this case, the first two techs where just unknowledgeable in almost anything, and either couldn't google, wouldn't google or were just wasting time. Any person who knew how to install JetDirect boxes could have had it up in 30 mins. The first two just failed at the whole process (ultimately one was fired and the other quit before being fired, and left IT).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
This is where "under the hood" transparency can be a bad thing.
I wasn't in the meeting, nor did I ever see the billing statement, so I'm not sure how much transparency there was in this billing situation.
I believe that the client mostly refused to pay for it because it should cost 10x as much to install a printer as it does to buy it.
Now of course we all know that installation can sometimes be more expensive than the purchase itself, but I think must of us also agree that's not generally the case for a printer. -
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@coliver said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
When I worked for a consulting company 15 years ago, a tech was sent out to a client's site to install a network printer. The printer itself didn't have a network port, so they had to use a JetDirect box.
The original tech went out and spent two days trying to get it to work and failed, he then elicited help from another tech, who after another day also couldn't get it to work. Day four they ask a third tech who comes in and has it installed in about 20 mins.
What should that client be billed?
I can tell you that all three techs submitted their billing, and the consulting company sent a bill for 24.5 hours of billing to the client. This was north of $3000.
The client demanded a meeting and refused to pay it. I don't know what the ultimate billing amount was, but it wasn't the full bill.
Why wouldn't the customer be billed in full? I get that $3,000 is a lot to install a printer. But if there were existing issues, either with the location, the hardware itself, or some knowledge of the infrastructure that wasn't know, that needed three techs then the billing would make sense. If this was internal IT then they would have payed a lot more for the troubleshooting time and the time/money it would have taken to go to an outside vendor (or support) to set it up anyway.
In some cases I would definitely agree with that - but in this case, the first two techs where just unknowledgeable in almost anything, and either couldn't google, wouldn't google or were just wasting time. Any person who knew how to install JetDirect boxes could have had it up in 30 mins. The first two just failed at the whole process (ultimately one was fired and the other quit before being fired, and left IT).
So unknowledgeable and unsupervised staff who had no business being in the field? I think you found one case study where paying the full amount wouldn't be viable, although the billing was still for the total hours applied.
-
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually had thunder shit almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Just wow Siri just wow
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually had thunder shit almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Just wow Siri just wow
ROFL. I can't breathe.
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
-
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
You just take to long to do those things.
In a simple environment you're talking 1 hour of work.FYI, the printers I install around here AIO Lanier LD117 are around $1300, so no, install definitely doesn't cost more.
Oh and I don't unbox stuff - pay the bench techs to do that shit.
-
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
You just take to long to do those things.
In a simple environment you're talking 1 hour of work.FYI, the printers I install around here AIO Lanier LD117 are around $1300, so no, install definitely doesn't cost more.
Oh and I don't unbox stuff - pay the bench techs to do that shit.
You have a bench tech? What waste of a money. Don't you have only 70isj staff?
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
You just take to long to do those things.
In a simple environment you're talking 1 hour of work.FYI, the printers I install around here AIO Lanier LD117 are around $1300, so no, install definitely doesn't cost more.
Oh and I don't unbox stuff - pay the bench techs to do that shit.
You have a bench tech? What waste of a money. Don't you have only 70isj staff?
Does he mean the people they lease the printers from? In almost every where I've worked the printers were leased and the techs did all the installation. I just setup a GPO to deploy it.
-
@coliver said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
You just take to long to do those things.
In a simple environment you're talking 1 hour of work.FYI, the printers I install around here AIO Lanier LD117 are around $1300, so no, install definitely doesn't cost more.
Oh and I don't unbox stuff - pay the bench techs to do that shit.
You have a bench tech? What waste of a money. Don't you have only 70isj staff?
Does he mean the people they lease the printers from? In almost every where I've worked the printers were leased and the techs did all the installation. I just setup a GPO to deploy it.
If he does, then he changed the conversation. It was about purchased printers
-
@coliver said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
Uh OK, I suppose if you're talking about desktop printers sure.
Even your normal work through printers only cost you $300 and if you're taking the time to play that with GPO get the driver set up unboxed it and install it yes it cost more than the printer to set up
You just take to long to do those things.
In a simple environment you're talking 1 hour of work.FYI, the printers I install around here AIO Lanier LD117 are around $1300, so no, install definitely doesn't cost more.
Oh and I don't unbox stuff - pay the bench techs to do that shit.
You have a bench tech? What waste of a money. Don't you have only 70isj staff?
Does he mean the people they lease the printers from? In almost every where I've worked the printers were leased and the techs did all the installation. I just setup a GPO to deploy it.
In my case yes, The selling/leasing company actually installs the printer, puts the IP in I give them, etc. As you said, I setup the GPO, print queue, etc.
And we buy our printers, we don't lease them.
-
As for a bench tech - that was mostly tongue in cheek. I mean when I'm consulting somewhere for something like this, sure I'm willing to spend my $150+/hr cost unboxing if you want me to - but normally someone at the office has it unboxed with all paperwork/cables, etc sitting there for me to install. Even if I do have to unbox it, that only adds 10 mins. I typically takes me less than 1 hour to setup a printer from unbox to GPO finished.
-
@Dashrender and your time to res arch and purchase? Then you time at each user getting it to show and setting default
-
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@coliver said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
When I worked for a consulting company 15 years ago, a tech was sent out to a client's site to install a network printer. The printer itself didn't have a network port, so they had to use a JetDirect box.
The original tech went out and spent two days trying to get it to work and failed, he then elicited help from another tech, who after another day also couldn't get it to work. Day four they ask a third tech who comes in and has it installed in about 20 mins.
What should that client be billed?
I can tell you that all three techs submitted their billing, and the consulting company sent a bill for 24.5 hours of billing to the client. This was north of $3000.
The client demanded a meeting and refused to pay it. I don't know what the ultimate billing amount was, but it wasn't the full bill.
Why wouldn't the customer be billed in full? I get that $3,000 is a lot to install a printer. But if there were existing issues, either with the location, the hardware itself, or some knowledge of the infrastructure that wasn't know, that needed three techs then the billing would make sense. If this was internal IT then they would have payed a lot more for the troubleshooting time and the time/money it would have taken to go to an outside vendor (or support) to set it up anyway.
In some cases I would definitely agree with that - but in this case, the first two techs where just unknowledgeable in almost anything, and either couldn't google, wouldn't google or were just wasting time. Any person who knew how to install JetDirect boxes could have had it up in 30 mins. The first two just failed at the whole process (ultimately one was fired and the other quit before being fired, and left IT).
If your description is correct, you are saying that the issue was that they were trying to bill for time not actually spent doing the job. That's very different than the time necessary or just taken to do the job.
-
@Dashrender said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@scottalanmiller said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
This is where "under the hood" transparency can be a bad thing.
I wasn't in the meeting, nor did I ever see the billing statement, so I'm not sure how much transparency there was in this billing situation.
I believe that the client mostly refused to pay for it because it should cost 10x as much to install a printer as it does to buy it.
Now of course we all know that installation can sometimes be more expensive than the purchase itself, but I think must of us also agree that's not generally the case for a printer.Lots of things cost 10x to install what they cost to buy. A printer is easily $50 and installation if there is any complexity is easily $500. How did they determine how much installation should cost?
-
@JaredBusch said in Ripping the bandaid off of the Sunk Cost Fallacy Issue:
@Dashrender actually a printer should almost always cost more to install the cost to buy because they are actually that cheap to buy
It cost more just to show up than it normally costs to buy a printer
