On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 1:09 PM Lou D <telescop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris , > > Competed the survey , I think I understand why some might feel issues with > the financial questions but it’s a fair point to understand on how there > can be avenues to maximize savings for one services if you can get > automation rolled in with it . All the best with the survey > Thanks, Lou! Savings is one potential aspect, but truly the spend numbers are mostly about helping to determine how "serious" companies are taking automation. Along with the other questions, they are a clue to how much automation is actually out there in the real world. Cheers, ~Chris > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:37 AM Chris Grundemann <cgrundem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:30 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >>> Having the opt out is nice, but if I am being completely honest, it >>> gives me pause as to what the intent of this survey is in the first place. >>> >>> I perhaps may be hyper cynical, but those feel like a straight line >>> towards the standard salesperson line of "look at what you are spending now >>> on FOO , you could save X if you used BAR". >>> >> >> Fair play, Tom. All I can say is that after 20 years of working on, in, >> and around the Internet, I'm sure as hell not going to ruin my reputation >> now. >> >> The intent of the survey is exactly as I stated: To report network >> automation trends back to the community. >> >> And whether we engineers like it or not, one of the best ways to measure >> trends is in the relative amount of money organizations spend on them... >> >> HTH, >> ~Chris >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:12 PM Chris Grundemann <cgrundem...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:15 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was also off put by some of the financial questions in there. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The financial questions (2 of them) both allow opt-out if that is a >>>> sticking point. They are also both as vague as possible (large ranges, not >>>> exact figures) while still providing something to baseline against. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com