A Mandate to Be Cheap
-
@dafyre said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
Cheap is one of those subjective words as well... What @DustinB3403 thinks is cheap, what I think is cheap, and what @scottalanmiller thinks is cheap can all be different things.
Not really. Cheap means "cost less to acquire". Or "you spend less". Cheaper means that one is less than another. Cheapest is free or as close to free as possible. Saying something "is cheap" is subjective, but that's not involved here. Prioritizing cheap means that "spending less up front" is more important than everything else, like "value to the business".
-
@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?
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
And I know of very few businesses that would say it must be Free
Free is just dangerous, as it's all on "you" to maintain. Sure you save 100% of the cost.
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.
But if it doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, then what difference does the cost make? So to use your example, if you buy the 'cheaper' NTG option, yet they can't fix your problems, did you really get the cheaper option? I'd say no, instead you just wasted money.
We assume that it solves the problem, or isn't in the decision matrix. If "solving the problem" wasn't a goal, you'd literally do nothing at all - not even drive into work any more. Solving the problem is obviously implied or this discussion would not even arise.
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
A business owner should understand the value of the people they have employed. Without understanding that, the owner would look around and immediately think everyone employed by them is there to rob from them.
Of course they should but you can read countless encounters where they don't. Hell, I think you've given some of those points from time to time.... i.e. you're dealing with learning XO instead of just purchasing a know good working backup product. Of the fact that your company won't shell out the $900/yr for XOA which would keep you from having to jump through hoops to keep XO updated manually, etc.
Oh I totally agree, and the best approach for this business (other business issues included) requires that at ever point, if it's reasonably easy to do and free do it, that that is the given choice.
I've actually had this conversation time and again.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
And I know of very few businesses that would say it must be Free
Free is just dangerous, as it's all on "you" to maintain. Sure you save 100% of the cost.
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.
But if it doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, then what difference does the cost make? So to use your example, if you buy the 'cheaper' NTG option, yet they can't fix your problems, did you really get the cheaper option? I'd say no, instead you just wasted money.
The goal of most businesses is to support the infrastructure, not troubleshoot the source code.
So 99.999999% of the time the solution works perfectly.
No, the goal of most businesses is to make money. Period.
But some, we find, is to be cheap while making less money. But that's an emotional driver in politics, not a logical one of business.
-
@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:
A better example than support would be say Access Points (APs).
The solution calls for 10 APs, but management wants to be cheep, so they only install 5. A year goes by and 99% of the time WiFi works just fine (and from a management perspective it's 100% because they personally haven't been affected) so now management looks at IT and says why did you want 10, clearly 5 have done the job. Now management doesn't trust that IT is doing their job as efficiently as they could have, and questions everything going forward.
This is a good example, and it could be proven that "well do you need 10 AP's here is the documentation to prove it"
Which you could run a heat map, and check the coverage of the AP's and performance monitoring etc.
we're talking about management here, documentation, smockumentation - they don't need no documentation.. they look around and say.. see, we've been running for 1 year - I know of no problems.. you're just an over spender. It's the difference between being a business person and being and 'owner'.
A business owner should understand the value of the people they have employed. Without understanding that, the owner would look around and immediately think everyone employed by them is there to rob from them.
I've literally seen owners thing that. Even to the point of refusing to give staff the tools necessary to do their work because they assumed that staff won't work regardless and are just there to collect the paycheck.
-
@scottalanmiller said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
And I know of very few businesses that would say it must be Free
Free is just dangerous, as it's all on "you" to maintain. Sure you save 100% of the cost.
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.
But if it doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, then what difference does the cost make? So to use your example, if you buy the 'cheaper' NTG option, yet they can't fix your problems, did you really get the cheaper option? I'd say no, instead you just wasted money.
We assume that it solves the problem, or isn't in the decision matrix. If "solving the problem" wasn't a goal, you'd literally do nothing at all - not even drive into work any more. Solving the problem is obviously implied or this discussion would not even arise.
Well then, considering my 1 min ago question - Best means option that solves problem while being lowest cost... then NTG would be the BEST solution.. it also happens to be the cheaper but really, less expensive option.
-
Cheap has, to me, always been related to quality. Something that is cheap is inferior to other products. Inexpensive is different, again to me, then cheap. Inexpensive on the other hand meets your needs without sacrificing quality. Cheap =/= Inexpensive in my mind.
-
@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.
So can it be cheaper and still solve the problem and not be the best?
-
@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.
But in this case, the "best solution" just happens to have all the features they want and need at the lowest price point.
The cheapest solution isn't always going to be the best solution for a business... but sometimes it is.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
A better example than support would be say Access Points (APs).
The solution calls for 10 APs, but management wants to be cheep, so they only install 5. A year goes by and 99% of the time WiFi works just fine (and from a management perspective it's 100% because they personally haven't been affected) so now management looks at IT and says why did you want 10, clearly 5 have done the job. Now management doesn't trust that IT is doing their job as efficiently as they could have, and questions everything going forward.
This is a good example, and it could be proven that "well do you need 10 AP's here is the documentation to prove it"
Which you could run a heat map, and check the coverage of the AP's and performance monitoring etc.
we're talking about management here, documentation, smockumentation - they don't need no documentation.. they look around and say.. see, we've been running for 1 year - I know of no problems.. you're just an over spender. It's the difference between being a business person and being and 'owner'.
Not good managers, just those trying to get paid and maybe take advantage of the company, or those that really don't know what they are doing.
A good manager is interested in the business. Owners are just investors.
-
@coliver said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
Cheap has, to me, always been related to quality. Something that is cheap is inferior to other products. Inexpensive is different, again to me, then cheap. Inexpensive on the other hand meets your needs without sacrificing quality. Cheap = / = Inexpensive in my mind.
This is a good way to look at it.
-
@dafyre 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.
But in this case, the "best solution" just happens to have all the features they want and need at the lowest price point.
The cheapest solution isn't always going to be the best solution for a business... but sometimes it is.
Please give an example of a solution that isn't the best while meeting the goals and is cheaper than the best solution.
-
@Dashrender 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.
So can it be cheaper and still solve the problem and not be the best?
Xen Orchestra from the sources is as cheap as it gets (because of the functionality of it). Meaning that you download the XO Update Script, and have all of the functionality, and capability of XOA, but at a literal $0 price point.
The fact that XO by it's self is disposable, and recreated in minutes.
Not that I don't love @olivier for the work he's created, but the source option is literally the best choice for this business.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
A business owner should understand the value of the people they have employed. Without understanding that, the owner would look around and immediately think everyone employed by them is there to rob from them.
Of course they should but you can read countless encounters where they don't. Hell, I think you've given some of those points from time to time.... i.e. you're dealing with learning XO instead of just purchasing a know good working backup product. Of the fact that your company won't shell out the $900/yr for XOA which would keep you from having to jump through hoops to keep XO updated manually, etc.
$900/yr is a LOT, though. In a five year solution, that's $4,500. If you earn $90,000/year that's $450,000 during that window. Which is exactly 1% of your time for XO.
1% of a 40 hour IT guy is 104 hours during that time. That's a LOT of hours for maintaining a single application. It's very, very easy for a shop to support XO for that long with far less time than that. And it's not like XOA uses zero time itself. Only the delta between the two needs to be 104 hours.
And if you have staff that is idle and/or earning less than 90K or works more than 40 hours a week.... the numbers skew towards the free solution quickly.
-
@DustinB3403 said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@Dashrender 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.
So can it be cheaper and still solve the problem and not be the best?
Xen Orchestra from the sources is as cheap as it gets (because of the functionality of it). Meaning the XO Updater script, the capability to install it in a matter of minutes.
The fact that XO by it's self is disposable, and recreated in minutes.
Not that I don't love @olivier for the work he's created, but the source option is literally the best choice for this business.
is it? Could you spend the time you spend updating XO doing other things that are more valuable to the company? Maybe? Maybe not?
-
@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?
Acquisition cost is a factor in the TCO, but only the TCO is the cost, not the acquisition cost. And ROI is more important regardless of TCO.
-
@Dashrender said in A Mandate to Be Cheap:
@dafyre 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.
But in this case, the "best solution" just happens to have all the features they want and need at the lowest price point.
The cheapest solution isn't always going to be the best solution for a business... but sometimes it is.
Please give an example of a solution that isn't the best while meeting the goals and is cheaper than the best solution.
PowerCAMPUS vs Jenzabar's POISE product lines... (this was a real choice at my last job)... We went with PowerCampus, because it did most of the things we wanted it to do, but it still lacked several features of the more expensive POISE product that would have made many things much better across our campus.
PowerCAMPUS did most of what we wanted, it met most of the goals, and came out cheaper than POISE.
Edit: I was agreeing with you, @Dashrender , lol.
-
@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.
