On Mon, 27 Feb 2023, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
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?
In this hypothetical exchange, a business owner who didn't realize
that a single PC would make or break a significant customer
relationship would in all likelihood not be in business for very long.
If your core competencies depend on 100% uptime during business hours
of all your computing systems, you're in a business that will sooner
or later demand commensurate IT spending.
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.
It's not that I disagree with your assessment, but I don't back off my
initial opinion that most IT decisions are based on risk assessment,
not technology assessement. The latter can inform but will rarely
trump the former.
To pursue the "I get to choose the hypothetical the proves my case"
tack you took, consider the business owner who is cash poor but
relatively time rich. Keeping cash on hand can justify the owner's
need to spend extra time keeping a fragile set of systems working. I
say "can," not "will" or "must," but I think the point is reasonable.
--
Paul Heinlein
heinl...@madboa.com
45°22'48" N, 122°35'36" W
