Mixing
How can I convince my boss that we need better machines? [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
Possible Duplicate:
How do I request new equipment for the office?
My boss strongly feels that if we keep the machines clean which to him means: not installing any unnecessary programs and formatting the computer routinely, there is no need to purchase a new machine at least until it has been used for ten years.
I tried to tell him that slow machines really hinder productivity and software gets heavier over time, but he would reiterate his argument.
What is a good way to convince my boss to buy us a new machine?
management
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
marked as duplicate by CincinnatiProgrammer, Rarity, sysadmin1138, pdr, jcmeloni Feb 5 '13 at 13:27
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
Possible Duplicate:
How do I request new equipment for the office?
My boss strongly feels that if we keep the machines clean which to him means: not installing any unnecessary programs and formatting the computer routinely, there is no need to purchase a new machine at least until it has been used for ten years.
I tried to tell him that slow machines really hinder productivity and software gets heavier over time, but he would reiterate his argument.
What is a good way to convince my boss to buy us a new machine?
management
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
marked as duplicate by CincinnatiProgrammer, Rarity, sysadmin1138, pdr, jcmeloni Feb 5 '13 at 13:27
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
12
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
5
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
1
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
2
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
1
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59
 |Â
show 12 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
up vote
15
down vote
favorite
Possible Duplicate:
How do I request new equipment for the office?
My boss strongly feels that if we keep the machines clean which to him means: not installing any unnecessary programs and formatting the computer routinely, there is no need to purchase a new machine at least until it has been used for ten years.
I tried to tell him that slow machines really hinder productivity and software gets heavier over time, but he would reiterate his argument.
What is a good way to convince my boss to buy us a new machine?
management
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
Possible Duplicate:
How do I request new equipment for the office?
My boss strongly feels that if we keep the machines clean which to him means: not installing any unnecessary programs and formatting the computer routinely, there is no need to purchase a new machine at least until it has been used for ten years.
I tried to tell him that slow machines really hinder productivity and software gets heavier over time, but he would reiterate his argument.
What is a good way to convince my boss to buy us a new machine?
management
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:48
Community♦
1
1
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
asked Feb 5 '13 at 6:45
l46kok
1721111
1721111
marked as duplicate by CincinnatiProgrammer, Rarity, sysadmin1138, pdr, jcmeloni Feb 5 '13 at 13:27
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by CincinnatiProgrammer, Rarity, sysadmin1138, pdr, jcmeloni Feb 5 '13 at 13:27
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
12
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
5
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
1
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
2
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
1
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59
 |Â
show 12 more comments
12
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
5
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
1
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
2
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
1
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59
12
12
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
5
5
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
1
1
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
2
2
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
1
1
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59
 |Â
show 12 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
27
down vote
accepted
Everything is about Money. So you need to show that the machines will pay for themselves better then what you currently have.
One way to do this is to determine the average spent per employee on their machine compiling code, AND other functions which take time.
Do it for a week or two (or a month), get a report from each engineer of the amount of time involved. Then work that amount of time out for the year and equate it to lost productivity.
Example: Let's say each engineer compiles their code 10 times a day. So you have lost 20-30 minutes per engineer a day. Let's pick the average and say 25 minutes per engineer.
That works out to 4.5 days a year per engineer is lost productivity. For 6 engineers that is 27 days of productivity lost.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
Wow, I thought I was crazy sticking with a 2005 PC..
In addition to the fine answer by Simon, I would like to add my own points.
With such an old machine, Repair costs are likely to be much higher, especially compared to repair under warranty. You have not given any specifics, but if you have situations or data regarding this, you can use that to further your case.
Newer Machines and LCD monitors might consume lower power, low enough to be significant over 3-5 years.
Additionally, when presenting your case, take a mid-range machine as the ideal case, a high-end one might be going into diminishing returns area for a small company.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Be careful how you try to present any ROI argument. There are a lot of purchases that could be made to help the bottom line over time, but are no good right now if your company doesn't have the cash or if venture capital is restricted. You may be able to prevent wasting a certain amount of time per day/per programmer, but there are other factors:
- Does your boss expect you to just work longer hours without extra pay because you're on salary?
- You boss thinks each programmer already has several minutes of unproductive time, so you might as well be compiling at the same time.
- Your company can't find any more billable hours or additional work to justify the time savings. More productive hours may not directly create revenue.
- Projects are not behind, so why bother saving the extra time? (Would be hard to believe.).
Part of me thinks you're arguing with an idiot or someone who has been beaten up too often and has developed penny wise and pound foolish thinking. I don't agree with the arguments I presented nor do I know if your boss thinks this way.
The slow computers are probably another symptom about the problems with working for this company. Your boss is giving the impression he just doesn't care to try and make employees happy. It's not all about money. There are other 'perks' he could offer that don't require as much company cash (e.g. flex-time, telecommute, free muffins on Tuesday, allow you to try and find other solutions/buy just one machine for compiling.).
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
In all likelihood, you can't. Sorry, there it is.
The problem is departmentalization: beancounter 1 is responsible for office arrangement, beancounter 2 for machines, beancounter 3 for programmer's productivity and project.
BC 1 and 2 do not care the least bit about BC 3's interests.
Read good discussion how noise and open space ruin team productivity in Peopleware (deMarco) IIRC and McConnell's books. Both are top of the line experts on sw development processes, not to mention other people like Paul Graham, all oppose noisy environments like open space and then... nothing happens. It all stays the same. The problem is that assessing programmer productivity is loaded with lots of difficulties or risks, while beancounting on $100 on hard drive or office arrangement is easy, so beancounters go with the latter option. Remember: people do not go for profitable options, but for EASY ones!
I'm typing this on laptop with mechanical drive even though this kills productivity given our sw dev environment. Trying to phrase this in economics of entire company falls on deaf ears.
UPDATE:
OK scratch the 3 beancounters, roll them all into 1, namely the boss in question. That still does not change the basic problem I described: assessing impact of old machines on programmer productivity is hard, bc assessing productivity of programmers as such is hard. The losses in employee time given the old machines in all likelihood are much bigger than the cost of the new equipment. But evaluating the cost of the former is easy vs evaluating the latter is hard, so your boss does the former.
All you could do I think is simple calculation like:
compilation done n times on average each day * number of employees doing compilation * employee wage per compilation instance time = $X.
If you tried to put this in numerical terms, maybe it will work - but even then I think it won't, as such people typically have vain hope that it will work well enough as it is and that those other losses are not real since evaluating those losses is debatable and hard.
That's your best chance although I'm afraid the boss response will be "don't make programming errors and reduce the number of compilations!".
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
27
down vote
accepted
Everything is about Money. So you need to show that the machines will pay for themselves better then what you currently have.
One way to do this is to determine the average spent per employee on their machine compiling code, AND other functions which take time.
Do it for a week or two (or a month), get a report from each engineer of the amount of time involved. Then work that amount of time out for the year and equate it to lost productivity.
Example: Let's say each engineer compiles their code 10 times a day. So you have lost 20-30 minutes per engineer a day. Let's pick the average and say 25 minutes per engineer.
That works out to 4.5 days a year per engineer is lost productivity. For 6 engineers that is 27 days of productivity lost.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
27
down vote
accepted
Everything is about Money. So you need to show that the machines will pay for themselves better then what you currently have.
One way to do this is to determine the average spent per employee on their machine compiling code, AND other functions which take time.
Do it for a week or two (or a month), get a report from each engineer of the amount of time involved. Then work that amount of time out for the year and equate it to lost productivity.
Example: Let's say each engineer compiles their code 10 times a day. So you have lost 20-30 minutes per engineer a day. Let's pick the average and say 25 minutes per engineer.
That works out to 4.5 days a year per engineer is lost productivity. For 6 engineers that is 27 days of productivity lost.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
27
down vote
accepted
up vote
27
down vote
accepted
Everything is about Money. So you need to show that the machines will pay for themselves better then what you currently have.
One way to do this is to determine the average spent per employee on their machine compiling code, AND other functions which take time.
Do it for a week or two (or a month), get a report from each engineer of the amount of time involved. Then work that amount of time out for the year and equate it to lost productivity.
Example: Let's say each engineer compiles their code 10 times a day. So you have lost 20-30 minutes per engineer a day. Let's pick the average and say 25 minutes per engineer.
That works out to 4.5 days a year per engineer is lost productivity. For 6 engineers that is 27 days of productivity lost.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
Everything is about Money. So you need to show that the machines will pay for themselves better then what you currently have.
One way to do this is to determine the average spent per employee on their machine compiling code, AND other functions which take time.
Do it for a week or two (or a month), get a report from each engineer of the amount of time involved. Then work that amount of time out for the year and equate it to lost productivity.
Example: Let's say each engineer compiles their code 10 times a day. So you have lost 20-30 minutes per engineer a day. Let's pick the average and say 25 minutes per engineer.
That works out to 4.5 days a year per engineer is lost productivity. For 6 engineers that is 27 days of productivity lost.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
answered Feb 5 '13 at 7:42
Simon O'Doherty
4,85111435
4,85111435
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
 |Â
show 3 more comments
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
5
5
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
+1, good answer. Like any investment, you need to present a real ROI estimation. What does it cost you to use (and maintain!) these old machines versus how much would it cost to buy new ones. And don't forget to include all costs associated. If you need to, for instance, reformat, reinstall and set up the dev environment on your machines every month, then you need to include the time spent on that.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 9:00
2
2
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
It's not that simple. There are generally different budgets for capital expenditure and operating expenditure and it's often easier to lose money in the latter than the former.
– pdr
Feb 5 '13 at 11:47
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr excellent point.
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 12:19
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
@pdr It's a 6-person company. While amortized vs direct costs will have some impact on tax-liability, I doubt their budgeting and bookkeeping is complex enough that you can "lose" stuff in one or the other. Plus, at that size cash-flow tend to be more important than quarterly EBIT. You're thinking "large company" style.
– pap
Feb 5 '13 at 12:26
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
It is not always that easy, your boss can retort that you can do something while compiling like answering to mail, reviewing some documentation, etc. Although it is extremely inefficient every 10 minutes, it is doable.
– Xavier T.
Feb 5 '13 at 12:27
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
Wow, I thought I was crazy sticking with a 2005 PC..
In addition to the fine answer by Simon, I would like to add my own points.
With such an old machine, Repair costs are likely to be much higher, especially compared to repair under warranty. You have not given any specifics, but if you have situations or data regarding this, you can use that to further your case.
Newer Machines and LCD monitors might consume lower power, low enough to be significant over 3-5 years.
Additionally, when presenting your case, take a mid-range machine as the ideal case, a high-end one might be going into diminishing returns area for a small company.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Wow, I thought I was crazy sticking with a 2005 PC..
In addition to the fine answer by Simon, I would like to add my own points.
With such an old machine, Repair costs are likely to be much higher, especially compared to repair under warranty. You have not given any specifics, but if you have situations or data regarding this, you can use that to further your case.
Newer Machines and LCD monitors might consume lower power, low enough to be significant over 3-5 years.
Additionally, when presenting your case, take a mid-range machine as the ideal case, a high-end one might be going into diminishing returns area for a small company.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Wow, I thought I was crazy sticking with a 2005 PC..
In addition to the fine answer by Simon, I would like to add my own points.
With such an old machine, Repair costs are likely to be much higher, especially compared to repair under warranty. You have not given any specifics, but if you have situations or data regarding this, you can use that to further your case.
Newer Machines and LCD monitors might consume lower power, low enough to be significant over 3-5 years.
Additionally, when presenting your case, take a mid-range machine as the ideal case, a high-end one might be going into diminishing returns area for a small company.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
Wow, I thought I was crazy sticking with a 2005 PC..
In addition to the fine answer by Simon, I would like to add my own points.
With such an old machine, Repair costs are likely to be much higher, especially compared to repair under warranty. You have not given any specifics, but if you have situations or data regarding this, you can use that to further your case.
Newer Machines and LCD monitors might consume lower power, low enough to be significant over 3-5 years.
Additionally, when presenting your case, take a mid-range machine as the ideal case, a high-end one might be going into diminishing returns area for a small company.
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
answered Feb 5 '13 at 9:52
Karthik T
1913
1913
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
add a comment |Â
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
3
3
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
Good points. I'd also add that if you are showing a mid-range machine, to show a top end machine (which he won't buy) so as to make the mid-range look more economical. I got that trick from Dan Ariely. danariely.com
– Simon O'Doherty
Feb 5 '13 at 11:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Be careful how you try to present any ROI argument. There are a lot of purchases that could be made to help the bottom line over time, but are no good right now if your company doesn't have the cash or if venture capital is restricted. You may be able to prevent wasting a certain amount of time per day/per programmer, but there are other factors:
- Does your boss expect you to just work longer hours without extra pay because you're on salary?
- You boss thinks each programmer already has several minutes of unproductive time, so you might as well be compiling at the same time.
- Your company can't find any more billable hours or additional work to justify the time savings. More productive hours may not directly create revenue.
- Projects are not behind, so why bother saving the extra time? (Would be hard to believe.).
Part of me thinks you're arguing with an idiot or someone who has been beaten up too often and has developed penny wise and pound foolish thinking. I don't agree with the arguments I presented nor do I know if your boss thinks this way.
The slow computers are probably another symptom about the problems with working for this company. Your boss is giving the impression he just doesn't care to try and make employees happy. It's not all about money. There are other 'perks' he could offer that don't require as much company cash (e.g. flex-time, telecommute, free muffins on Tuesday, allow you to try and find other solutions/buy just one machine for compiling.).
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Be careful how you try to present any ROI argument. There are a lot of purchases that could be made to help the bottom line over time, but are no good right now if your company doesn't have the cash or if venture capital is restricted. You may be able to prevent wasting a certain amount of time per day/per programmer, but there are other factors:
- Does your boss expect you to just work longer hours without extra pay because you're on salary?
- You boss thinks each programmer already has several minutes of unproductive time, so you might as well be compiling at the same time.
- Your company can't find any more billable hours or additional work to justify the time savings. More productive hours may not directly create revenue.
- Projects are not behind, so why bother saving the extra time? (Would be hard to believe.).
Part of me thinks you're arguing with an idiot or someone who has been beaten up too often and has developed penny wise and pound foolish thinking. I don't agree with the arguments I presented nor do I know if your boss thinks this way.
The slow computers are probably another symptom about the problems with working for this company. Your boss is giving the impression he just doesn't care to try and make employees happy. It's not all about money. There are other 'perks' he could offer that don't require as much company cash (e.g. flex-time, telecommute, free muffins on Tuesday, allow you to try and find other solutions/buy just one machine for compiling.).
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Be careful how you try to present any ROI argument. There are a lot of purchases that could be made to help the bottom line over time, but are no good right now if your company doesn't have the cash or if venture capital is restricted. You may be able to prevent wasting a certain amount of time per day/per programmer, but there are other factors:
- Does your boss expect you to just work longer hours without extra pay because you're on salary?
- You boss thinks each programmer already has several minutes of unproductive time, so you might as well be compiling at the same time.
- Your company can't find any more billable hours or additional work to justify the time savings. More productive hours may not directly create revenue.
- Projects are not behind, so why bother saving the extra time? (Would be hard to believe.).
Part of me thinks you're arguing with an idiot or someone who has been beaten up too often and has developed penny wise and pound foolish thinking. I don't agree with the arguments I presented nor do I know if your boss thinks this way.
The slow computers are probably another symptom about the problems with working for this company. Your boss is giving the impression he just doesn't care to try and make employees happy. It's not all about money. There are other 'perks' he could offer that don't require as much company cash (e.g. flex-time, telecommute, free muffins on Tuesday, allow you to try and find other solutions/buy just one machine for compiling.).
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
Be careful how you try to present any ROI argument. There are a lot of purchases that could be made to help the bottom line over time, but are no good right now if your company doesn't have the cash or if venture capital is restricted. You may be able to prevent wasting a certain amount of time per day/per programmer, but there are other factors:
- Does your boss expect you to just work longer hours without extra pay because you're on salary?
- You boss thinks each programmer already has several minutes of unproductive time, so you might as well be compiling at the same time.
- Your company can't find any more billable hours or additional work to justify the time savings. More productive hours may not directly create revenue.
- Projects are not behind, so why bother saving the extra time? (Would be hard to believe.).
Part of me thinks you're arguing with an idiot or someone who has been beaten up too often and has developed penny wise and pound foolish thinking. I don't agree with the arguments I presented nor do I know if your boss thinks this way.
The slow computers are probably another symptom about the problems with working for this company. Your boss is giving the impression he just doesn't care to try and make employees happy. It's not all about money. There are other 'perks' he could offer that don't require as much company cash (e.g. flex-time, telecommute, free muffins on Tuesday, allow you to try and find other solutions/buy just one machine for compiling.).
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
edited Feb 22 '14 at 20:22
Community♦
1
1
answered Feb 5 '13 at 11:46
user8365
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
In all likelihood, you can't. Sorry, there it is.
The problem is departmentalization: beancounter 1 is responsible for office arrangement, beancounter 2 for machines, beancounter 3 for programmer's productivity and project.
BC 1 and 2 do not care the least bit about BC 3's interests.
Read good discussion how noise and open space ruin team productivity in Peopleware (deMarco) IIRC and McConnell's books. Both are top of the line experts on sw development processes, not to mention other people like Paul Graham, all oppose noisy environments like open space and then... nothing happens. It all stays the same. The problem is that assessing programmer productivity is loaded with lots of difficulties or risks, while beancounting on $100 on hard drive or office arrangement is easy, so beancounters go with the latter option. Remember: people do not go for profitable options, but for EASY ones!
I'm typing this on laptop with mechanical drive even though this kills productivity given our sw dev environment. Trying to phrase this in economics of entire company falls on deaf ears.
UPDATE:
OK scratch the 3 beancounters, roll them all into 1, namely the boss in question. That still does not change the basic problem I described: assessing impact of old machines on programmer productivity is hard, bc assessing productivity of programmers as such is hard. The losses in employee time given the old machines in all likelihood are much bigger than the cost of the new equipment. But evaluating the cost of the former is easy vs evaluating the latter is hard, so your boss does the former.
All you could do I think is simple calculation like:
compilation done n times on average each day * number of employees doing compilation * employee wage per compilation instance time = $X.
If you tried to put this in numerical terms, maybe it will work - but even then I think it won't, as such people typically have vain hope that it will work well enough as it is and that those other losses are not real since evaluating those losses is debatable and hard.
That's your best chance although I'm afraid the boss response will be "don't make programming errors and reduce the number of compilations!".
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
In all likelihood, you can't. Sorry, there it is.
The problem is departmentalization: beancounter 1 is responsible for office arrangement, beancounter 2 for machines, beancounter 3 for programmer's productivity and project.
BC 1 and 2 do not care the least bit about BC 3's interests.
Read good discussion how noise and open space ruin team productivity in Peopleware (deMarco) IIRC and McConnell's books. Both are top of the line experts on sw development processes, not to mention other people like Paul Graham, all oppose noisy environments like open space and then... nothing happens. It all stays the same. The problem is that assessing programmer productivity is loaded with lots of difficulties or risks, while beancounting on $100 on hard drive or office arrangement is easy, so beancounters go with the latter option. Remember: people do not go for profitable options, but for EASY ones!
I'm typing this on laptop with mechanical drive even though this kills productivity given our sw dev environment. Trying to phrase this in economics of entire company falls on deaf ears.
UPDATE:
OK scratch the 3 beancounters, roll them all into 1, namely the boss in question. That still does not change the basic problem I described: assessing impact of old machines on programmer productivity is hard, bc assessing productivity of programmers as such is hard. The losses in employee time given the old machines in all likelihood are much bigger than the cost of the new equipment. But evaluating the cost of the former is easy vs evaluating the latter is hard, so your boss does the former.
All you could do I think is simple calculation like:
compilation done n times on average each day * number of employees doing compilation * employee wage per compilation instance time = $X.
If you tried to put this in numerical terms, maybe it will work - but even then I think it won't, as such people typically have vain hope that it will work well enough as it is and that those other losses are not real since evaluating those losses is debatable and hard.
That's your best chance although I'm afraid the boss response will be "don't make programming errors and reduce the number of compilations!".
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
In all likelihood, you can't. Sorry, there it is.
The problem is departmentalization: beancounter 1 is responsible for office arrangement, beancounter 2 for machines, beancounter 3 for programmer's productivity and project.
BC 1 and 2 do not care the least bit about BC 3's interests.
Read good discussion how noise and open space ruin team productivity in Peopleware (deMarco) IIRC and McConnell's books. Both are top of the line experts on sw development processes, not to mention other people like Paul Graham, all oppose noisy environments like open space and then... nothing happens. It all stays the same. The problem is that assessing programmer productivity is loaded with lots of difficulties or risks, while beancounting on $100 on hard drive or office arrangement is easy, so beancounters go with the latter option. Remember: people do not go for profitable options, but for EASY ones!
I'm typing this on laptop with mechanical drive even though this kills productivity given our sw dev environment. Trying to phrase this in economics of entire company falls on deaf ears.
UPDATE:
OK scratch the 3 beancounters, roll them all into 1, namely the boss in question. That still does not change the basic problem I described: assessing impact of old machines on programmer productivity is hard, bc assessing productivity of programmers as such is hard. The losses in employee time given the old machines in all likelihood are much bigger than the cost of the new equipment. But evaluating the cost of the former is easy vs evaluating the latter is hard, so your boss does the former.
All you could do I think is simple calculation like:
compilation done n times on average each day * number of employees doing compilation * employee wage per compilation instance time = $X.
If you tried to put this in numerical terms, maybe it will work - but even then I think it won't, as such people typically have vain hope that it will work well enough as it is and that those other losses are not real since evaluating those losses is debatable and hard.
That's your best chance although I'm afraid the boss response will be "don't make programming errors and reduce the number of compilations!".
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
In all likelihood, you can't. Sorry, there it is.
The problem is departmentalization: beancounter 1 is responsible for office arrangement, beancounter 2 for machines, beancounter 3 for programmer's productivity and project.
BC 1 and 2 do not care the least bit about BC 3's interests.
Read good discussion how noise and open space ruin team productivity in Peopleware (deMarco) IIRC and McConnell's books. Both are top of the line experts on sw development processes, not to mention other people like Paul Graham, all oppose noisy environments like open space and then... nothing happens. It all stays the same. The problem is that assessing programmer productivity is loaded with lots of difficulties or risks, while beancounting on $100 on hard drive or office arrangement is easy, so beancounters go with the latter option. Remember: people do not go for profitable options, but for EASY ones!
I'm typing this on laptop with mechanical drive even though this kills productivity given our sw dev environment. Trying to phrase this in economics of entire company falls on deaf ears.
UPDATE:
OK scratch the 3 beancounters, roll them all into 1, namely the boss in question. That still does not change the basic problem I described: assessing impact of old machines on programmer productivity is hard, bc assessing productivity of programmers as such is hard. The losses in employee time given the old machines in all likelihood are much bigger than the cost of the new equipment. But evaluating the cost of the former is easy vs evaluating the latter is hard, so your boss does the former.
All you could do I think is simple calculation like:
compilation done n times on average each day * number of employees doing compilation * employee wage per compilation instance time = $X.
If you tried to put this in numerical terms, maybe it will work - but even then I think it won't, as such people typically have vain hope that it will work well enough as it is and that those other losses are not real since evaluating those losses is debatable and hard.
That's your best chance although I'm afraid the boss response will be "don't make programming errors and reduce the number of compilations!".
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
edited Feb 6 '13 at 9:25
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
answered Feb 5 '13 at 12:54
mrkafk
1111
1111
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
add a comment |Â
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
2
2
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
Question says "(6 employees)" and you think there are three beancounters?
– AakashM
Feb 5 '13 at 13:04
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
@AakashM: indeed. The issue here is surely not departmentalization of bean counters, but the fact that the guy counting the beans sees them as his beans. Small company, I'm assuming the boss is the owner, any new computer purchase is going to feel like him buying a new computer for you. Not like the company making a necessary business purchase to improve productivity.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 21:57
add a comment |Â
12
Instead of shopping for new machines, I think you need to shop for a new boss. This guy is cutting corners everywhere.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 8:04
5
@pap: make the point that a new high-end developer workstation might be a considerable investment, but a new developer will be a really considerable investment.
– Carson63000
Feb 5 '13 at 10:06
1
@pap any person starting a software business and not taking into account basic supplies such as hardware isn't someone I'd want running a business.
– DA.
Feb 5 '13 at 16:34
2
Voting to re-open. How to justify investments in tools differs between small/start-up companies and large ones are different cases and I think the "small business" aspect makes this a valid question.
– pap
Feb 6 '13 at 7:47
1
I am also voting to reopen this one as I feel the question and answers on the linked question focus primarily on office furniture, while this one specifically focuses on computers. Also, I like the accepted answer to this one :)
– Rachel
Feb 27 '14 at 17:59