Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Sadly, while I like a full revamp more, I think that sticking with the Mitel is going to be the sensible answer in the end. The sunk cost creates an existing (current) value that is hard to overcome. BUT, I would have testing and a plan in place to not replace it when that time comes. It's that the current Mitel still works, or mostly works, that creates the current value that ripping and replacing probably can't overcome.
I'm almost flabbergasted, but I actually reached this conclusion before making this thread.
Scott's pointing out of possibly using even cheaper phones than ones JB and I discussed though did bring the possibility that a conversion was viable.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
This is one of those situations, I suspect, where the real business need and the "thing that seems great to IT" probably won't line up. The Mitels are "good enough" and so much cheaper (because they are already paid for) that moving to something else just can't be justified given the other needs (not all using softphones, lacking cabling for the phones and so forth.)
I almost consider myself lucky, because only 10 phones would actually need new cabling. There is already a network jack at the rest of the locations, so the PCs would just hang off the phone. Which is why I want to move to Gb based phones.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Sadly, while I like a full revamp more, I think that sticking with the Mitel is going to be the sensible answer in the end. The sunk cost creates an existing (current) value that is hard to overcome. BUT, I would have testing and a plan in place to not replace it when that time comes. It's that the current Mitel still works, or mostly works, that creates the current value that ripping and replacing probably can't overcome.
I'm almost flabbergasted, but I actually reached this conclusion before making this thread.
Scott's pointing out of possibly using even cheaper phones than ones JB and I discussed though did bring the possibility that a conversion was viable.
Oh, I think that it is viable. But best option? I think is sadly, unlikely.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
This is one of those situations, I suspect, where the real business need and the "thing that seems great to IT" probably won't line up. The Mitels are "good enough" and so much cheaper (because they are already paid for) that moving to something else just can't be justified given the other needs (not all using softphones, lacking cabling for the phones and so forth.)
I almost consider myself lucky, because only 10 phones would actually need new cabling. There is already a network jack at the rest of the locations, so the PCs would just hang off the phone. Which is why I want to move to Gb based phones.
Makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Sadly, while I like a full revamp more, I think that sticking with the Mitel is going to be the sensible answer in the end. The sunk cost creates an existing (current) value that is hard to overcome. BUT, I would have testing and a plan in place to not replace it when that time comes. It's that the current Mitel still works, or mostly works, that creates the current value that ripping and replacing probably can't overcome.
I'm almost flabbergasted, but I actually reached this conclusion before making this thread.
Scott's pointing out of possibly using even cheaper phones than ones JB and I discussed though did bring the possibility that a conversion was viable.
Oh, I think that it is viable. But best option? I think is sadly, unlikely.
I guess Viable was the wrong word - of course FreePBX was always viable, but the lower cost of the handsets you suggest made it more likely to be financially in the realm.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Also, it's never passthrough, it's a two port switch. Important at a networking level, switched Ethernet can't passthrough.
Yes, we all know that, but the vernacular term is passthrough.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
This is one of those situations, I suspect, where the real business need and the "thing that seems great to IT" probably won't line up. The Mitels are "good enough" and so much cheaper (because they are already paid for) that moving to something else just can't be justified given the other needs (not all using softphones, lacking cabling for the phones and so forth.)
I almost consider myself lucky, because only 10 phones would actually need new cabling. There is already a network jack at the rest of the locations, so the PCs would just hang off the phone. Which is why I want to move to Gb based phones.
The phone I would recommend first for normal people is the Yealink T42G/S. That phone is $105 with gigabit.
It has 6 keys available on the screen, or 3 pages of 5 keys.
I specifically would not recommend it for @Dashrender's situation due to the expected need for keys to be setup with extra features to replicate his existing functionality without making users learn to use feature codes.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
scroll to do it? This isn't something I'd imagine a professional needing to do very often, so I'm struggling to figure out what to fix
I Already listed the buttons needed, but here they are again, and this doesn't include any quick dial extension buttons.
DND
call forwarding
voice mail
transfer
on hold
3 calling lines
intercom
conferencing
muteThose three line displays have 6 buttons on them, normally two of them are for previous/next page, so that leaves 4 buttons per display.
DND is built in as a soft key on Yealink. But it has issues that need tested due to local DND on the phone versus PBX DND for this specific install.
Hold, Call transfer, and forward are in the soft keys when a call is active. Hold has to be disabled for this scenario, because hold is local to the phone making calls inaccessible from another extension.
3 call lines will take up 3 of the programmable buttons.
Mute is a hard key
Intercom is a feature code and can be put on a programmable button.
-
To continue on with some specifics for @Dashrender or anyone else, this is the LCD of a T42G/S
The Line/DSS keys are able to be set to a number of things. The limit for this model is 15 keys. 3 pages of 5 keys. If you only use the first 6, then the right bottom DSS button shows key 6 instead of the 1-2-3. For @Dashrender's scenario, he wants 3 of the DSS to be line keys, but I htink that is form a lack of understanding how a line works on a SIP based PBX.
Generally I always set 2 line keys because user cannot handle more than two calls at once anyway. If a user needs to put a call on hold, I disable the hold function on the phone and instead tell people to park calls. so the need for active lines to a specific phone are lower. A parked call is in control of the PBX.
Generally, you want to configure each person's phone to show the keys they normally use the most on the same screen. If the person is always transferring calls to Bob, add a BLF for Bob. If they are always parking and picking up parked calls, add parks and put the BLF on page 2. Finally, on page 3 add the line keys because no one ever needs to use them to make or answer calls.
The DSS keys never change unless reprogrammed.
On the other hand, the 4 programmable soft keys change based on what the phone is doing at the moment.
In this shot, you can see I have set up key 1 to bring up the local # directory that is stored in the phone. key 2 is set to bring up a remote phone book of common numbers, hence the name shared #. by default key 3 is DND and key 4 is menu. Again these keys can be changed to many different things, but you need to be aware that they are not always going to show the same.
Here is what they look like, by default, on a call.
Finally, the hard keys limited to 5. Mute, Headset, Voicemail, redial, speaker phone.
-
maybe that post should be it's own thread. /shrug. it is less about the sunk cost and more about phone functionality.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
maybe that post should be it's own thread. /shrug. it is less about the sunk cost and more about phone functionality.
Definitely should be a post as part of your PBX series.
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
maybe that post should be it's own thread. /shrug. it is less about the sunk cost and more about phone functionality.
Definitely should be a post as part of your PBX series.
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
Of course not. Each parking lot is an extension itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
-
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
My guess is that to "steal" a call you call the extension that has the call on hold and push a button. That brings that on hold call to your handset.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
