The problem with that is that the assessment itself is biased. If a business owner is doing the assessment they tend to bias against cost.
But, what happens if a customer calls at the very moment your receptionist's PC is crashed, and she says "sorry I can't help my computer is down" And that customer says "no problem" hangs up, calls someone else, then over the next decade develops $200k of business with that vendor? Lost opportunity cost. It's not easy to quantify so the business owners doing the assessment on new gear tend to discount $downtimeRisk. Which is why So many small businesses remain small, to be perfectly frank. Personally as a 1 man shop I'm OK with remaining small. But if you are a small business owner who employs others, you have a responsibility to provide continued employment for them, and that means prioritizing $downtimeRisk. At least, that's my take on it. Ted -----Original Message----- From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of Paul Heinlein Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:39 AM To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Remote work on downed server ( Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: March PLUG Meeting: Anatomy of a Mailing List Meltdown ) >IT systems, like every other business asset, are assessed primarily from a >risk-management POV, not a technological one. And, frankly, this is >>appropriate. Business owners need justifications for expenses. >If spending ($cheapGear + ($serviceCall * 3) + $downtimeRisk) is lower than >($bestGear), then the argument for the best gear is dicey.
