Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Honestly, I'd probably just pay anything and stick with the technical debt. There are some benefits to the old system and there are benefits to changing nothing and the benefits to saving money in the long haul or to process improvement are not appreciated, so while it's a great exercise, I dont think it is one that makes sense if you really look at the business context.
From the sounds of this thread, and others, this seems like the logical and business conscious course. The vendor lock-in would make me balk but at the costs outlined it doesn't make a lot of sense to move to a different system.
-
It's a common problem and all of us feel it, including @Dashrender, there is this drive to do a good job and save the company money and improve workflows and such. But that's not always the business priority and sometimes we have to accept that. No matter how cool it would be to put in an awesome new PBX, one that might even save money long term, just because we see it as a better business decision it may not be for this "customer." This is one of the harsh realities of the IT world - we have to understand the business goals and sometimes they are a bit depressing.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
I'll diagram the desire, then you all can pick it appart.
Clowns falling out of a clown car is what I'm envisioning for this diagram.
-
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
-
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
-
Have at it.
-
Sorry wrong topic.
Deleted.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
I think this is what they're after. If more buttons is professional, then this has to be light years ahead:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/JT_Switchboard_770x540.jpg
-
@stacksofplates said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
I think this is what they're after. If more buttons is professional, then this has to be light years ahead:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/JT_Switchboard_770x540.jpg
Yup, Mabelle with her 1/4" plugs listening in to the calls around town is the most professional person ever
-
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
-
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
I would expect, because you are also selling the savings as part of the solution and that should never be done. The solution needs to stand on its own regardless of savings. Almost everything is an expense in IT.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
I would expect, because you are also selling the savings as part of the solution and that should never be done. The solution needs to stand on its own regardless of savings. Almost everything is an expense in IT.
A solution is always about money. If money isn't affected, then why are you doing this?
We're a business right? All decisions are driven by money, right? -
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
A solution is always about money. If money isn't affected, then why are you doing this?
We're a business right? All decisions are driven by money, right?And money can not only be saved, but earned more rapidly by doing X,Y,Z.
So is it time to create a project proposal. (is that the correct term?)
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
He's in the same situation a lot of us are whether we admit it or not. My job has ZERO (ZERO) interest in saving any money whatsoever. As a matter of fact we get push back anytime we bring it up. If I were to try to hold out for the ideal job I'd die homeless
Your job is never to save money. Ever. Saving money, might be a benefit of a solution, but that is not your job.
Right but when I'm selling an idea to someone you would think savings would be considered a benefit but it isn't
I would expect, because you are also selling the savings as part of the solution and that should never be done. The solution needs to stand on its own regardless of savings. Almost everything is an expense in IT.
It's best practice first and then cost second almost always in my experience. Cost always being a factor in if we can do it but not why. Sometimes I can convince the owners to buy something they may not want to pay for because there are future savings. Now, the money isn't enough to make moving a priority 99% of the time but if you're improving what you have AND saving money that is huge
-
@DustinB3403 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
A solution is always about money. If money isn't affected, then why are you doing this?
We're a business right? All decisions are driven by money, right?And money can not only be saved, but earned more rapidly by doing X,Y,Z.
So is it time to create a project proposal. (is that the correct term?)
I made a 5 year proposal for an old job that saved them 40k a year and improved everything. They didn't do it
-
@wirestyle22 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@DustinB3403 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
A solution is always about money. If money isn't affected, then why are you doing this?
We're a business right? All decisions are driven by money, right?And money can not only be saved, but earned more rapidly by doing X,Y,Z.
So is it time to create a project proposal. (is that the correct term?)
I made a 5 year proposal for an old job that saved them 40k a year and improved everything. They didn't do it
Worth examining in another thread. You should post about it. Maybe it's related to presentation skills or tactics.
