A Mandate to Be Cheap
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So cheap in this discussion doesn't mean changing the stated goals to find a less costly solution, it just means finding a less expensive (cheaper) solution that still fills all the goals - I'm still lost how the new found solution wouldn't be the best? I suppose it could be that the 'cheaper' solution could require 10 hours of manual work by IT, where the more expensive option would require none or 1 hr, as an example.
What is best is "what improves the company's bottom line the most."
If the cheaper solution does not improve it the most, it's not the best. Period. Meeting base requirements or costing less to acquire aren't what do those things. They might, easily, but there is no direct connection.
Time out here - if the ongoing support makes the product more expensive, then clearly it's not the cheapest solution, and IT is failing to make management (IT management) understand this. Thought, this still breaks into the TCO, not ROI, so I'm not sure where ROI becomes more important?
ROI is the most important on static style purchases.
For example if you have to purchase a new 300Ton punch press, which cost $3million to purchase.
Do you want to purchase it with a loan from a bank, or business capitol. When will the machine have paid for its self.
Support never factors into the ROI equation, unless the RTO is meant for a mission critical business function (IE support fixes an issues that saves the business a lot of money, that otherwise would have been lost without that support)
Support, uptime, maintenance... are always part of ROI.
Of course, but support is a constant (in most cases) it's like paying for your cell phone bill. It's a cost of having a cell phone.
But the idea that support effects ROI would mean the Punch Press in my example, will never complete it's ROI.
Which means as a business just close shop and don't purchase the Punch Press.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So the summary to this topic is to find the lowest cost solution that meets the business needs, which effectively boosts the business profits.
No, that should not at all be the take away.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So the summary to this topic is to find the lowest cost solution that meets the business needs, which effectively boosts the business profits.
No, that should not at all be the take away.
And why not, the point of being in business is to turn a profit.....
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@coliver said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
The term cheap to me (and I think others) means it needs to perform to the level that we can still run production (or whatever the use case is) and save more money than what we may have been proposed before.
That's an undefinable definition. Cheap but not the cheapest, good but not the best for us. So not the best option for the business, but not recklessly cheap. How do you make decisions around that? How do you decide what is "cheap enough" while being "not so bad" but not just choosing "what is best for the financial interest of the business?"
I'm seriously, without a clear definition but also without the goal of doing what is right for the business... what's the motivator for this? What makes something the lesser choice, but good enough?
Isn't part of being the best solution also having the lowest cost while still getting all of the needed items from that solution?
Right, but cheap denotes that you are making sacrifices that would stop you from getting the best solution for you business. At least to me it does.
Exactly. "Best" is no longer the decision factor... something else is. Anything else, is bad. Cheap is just one of many bad options.
I think it's important to make the distinction that "best" is not a factor. It is a matrix, unlike "cheap", which is tied to a single factor.
Best remains a factor... that factor being "the most value to the business goal of profits".
-
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
Because of the political culture there, they were often trying to blame IT for bad decisions that were made over our head.
That's not the problem. The problem is trying to blame "in the trenches" IT and not the IT managers. Did the IT staff explain that IT management HAD made bad decisions, but that the people running IT were not labeling themselves as IT? If not, of course they blamed the remaining people who didn't explain who they were reporting to.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So the term cheap (generally) means, Find a solution that meets our needs, and boost profits as much as possible.
Cheap never means that, as I explained. Never.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So cheap in this discussion doesn't mean changing the stated goals to find a less costly solution, it just means finding a less expensive (cheaper) solution that still fills all the goals - I'm still lost how the new found solution wouldn't be the best? I suppose it could be that the 'cheaper' solution could require 10 hours of manual work by IT, where the more expensive option would require none or 1 hr, as an example.
What is best is "what improves the company's bottom line the most."
If the cheaper solution does not improve it the most, it's not the best. Period. Meeting base requirements or costing less to acquire aren't what do those things. They might, easily, but there is no direct connection.
Time out here - if the ongoing support makes the product more expensive, then clearly it's not the cheapest solution, and IT is failing to make management (IT management) understand this. Thought, this still breaks into the TCO, not ROI, so I'm not sure where ROI becomes more important?
ROI is the most important on static style purchases.
For example if you have to purchase a new 300Ton punch press, which cost $3million to purchase.
Do you want to purchase it with a loan from a bank, or business capitol. When will the machine have paid for its self.
Support never factors into the ROI equation, unless the RTO is meant for a mission critical business function (IE support fixes an issues that saves the business a lot of money, that otherwise would have been lost without that support)
Support, uptime, maintenance... are always part of ROI.
Of course, but support is a constant (in most cases) it's like paying for your cell phone bill. It's a cost of having a cell phone.
But the idea that support effects ROI would mean the Punch Press in my example, will never complete it's ROI.
Which means as a business just close shop and don't purchase the Punch Press.
That's correct, ROI is never completed until the machine no longer exists. That's assumed in the concept.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So the term cheap (generally) means, Find a solution that meets our needs, and boost profits as much as possible.
Cheap never means that, as I explained. Never.
I may have missed your explanation, was it something along the lines of "cheap means risking business profits?"
If so I'd disagree, and you already agreed with that sentiment when I mentioned XO from source versus XOA.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
Seriously? You've never has a solution that went sideways - for whatever reason? You're a lucky man!
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@coliver said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
The term cheap to me (and I think others) means it needs to perform to the level that we can still run production (or whatever the use case is) and save more money than what we may have been proposed before.
That's an undefinable definition. Cheap but not the cheapest, good but not the best for us. So not the best option for the business, but not recklessly cheap. How do you make decisions around that? How do you decide what is "cheap enough" while being "not so bad" but not just choosing "what is best for the financial interest of the business?"
I'm seriously, without a clear definition but also without the goal of doing what is right for the business... what's the motivator for this? What makes something the lesser choice, but good enough?
Isn't part of being the best solution also having the lowest cost while still getting all of the needed items from that solution?
Right, but cheap denotes that you are making sacrifices that would stop you from getting the best solution for you business. At least to me it does.
Exactly. "Best" is no longer the decision factor... something else is. Anything else, is bad. Cheap is just one of many bad options.
I think it's important to make the distinction that "best" is not a factor. It is a matrix, unlike "cheap", which is tied to a single factor.
Best remains a factor... that factor being "the most value to the business goal of profits".
Value is not a single factor. It's based on multiple factors, ergo it is a matrix.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
Seriously? You've never has a solution that went sideways - for whatever reason? You're a lucky man!
I wouldn't say I've never had a solution that has gone sideways, but I've only ever supplied solutions that are acceptable and proven to work.
Rather than going with an off-the wall solutions like using FreeNAS for a file server.
Sure it could work, but honestly why would any business or IT person consider or do this.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
Seriously? You've never has a solution that went sideways - for whatever reason? You're a lucky man!
I wouldn't say I've never had a solution that has gone sideways, but I've only ever supplied solutions that are acceptable and proven to work.
Rather than going with an off-the wall solutions like using FreeNAS for a file server.
Sure it could work, but honestly why would any business or IT person consider or do this.
I think that's the issue. You provide 2 good choices, and then flippantly say something like... "I guess you could do stupid option C, but that would be retarded." Boss chooses option C, obviously, and the subsequent failure is on you.
-
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
-
Now as an example.
We need a new file server to host 16TB of space.
What are the business needs above in the most general sense?
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@art_of_shred said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
This was prevalent for a number of years at my job... As I was leaving, it did not seem to be quite as large of a problem.
Why is it a problem at all? As long as everyone knows who is the IT decision maker, that's all that matters. That's the person you (I dislike saying this) blame when things don't work because of some decision that was made.
I agree, I see no problem at all. Not even sure what the perceived one is. Maybe that the IT Managers were not admitting that htey were?
LOL - exactly - that is the real problem. For example, my boss (or the board) are the ones that make the decision, not me. Therefore the fault is really there's. But they don't see it that way, which of course is crazy... instead they say - hey Dash, that solution that I picked from the ones you provided was shit, this is your fault.
I would argue that you shouldn't ever propose a solution that could turn into shit.
Only provide options that will work, and then the business can't make the "wrong choice" and have wasted money.
What?!? You must be new at this. Management will seldom let you get away with only providing good options, especially when they dictate your parameters with inane boundaries.
So the onus of deciding what solutions management gets to "review" is on you to present to management. It's your responsibility to say "That isn't an option, here is why it doesn't meet the needs of the business here, here and here"
Or whatever reasons. But business reasons should be the reasons that a solution isn't an option.
Sadly, they still have the authority to select the thing you said was not an option, and only recall that you mentioned it; thus it is your fault.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
Now as an example.
We need a new file server to host 16TB of space.
What are the business needs above in the most general sense?
It doesn't matter, because the options that satisfy those criteria will cost too much. You will be forced to stretch and bend until you come back with something that won't work, but will meet the artificial price point. And... then it's your failure.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
So the term cheap (generally) means, Find a solution that meets our needs, and boost profits as much as possible.
Cheap never means that, as I explained. Never.
I may have missed your explanation, was it something along the lines of "cheap means risking business profits?"
If so I'd disagree, and you already agreed with that sentiment when I mentioned XO from source versus XOA.
Cheaper means "less cost to acquire." Nothing further. No implications of good or bad.
