Tools or toys?

Dear Bob …

I work in “desktop engineering” at a company with about 5,000 employees, mostly in two main campuses, but with numerous smaller locations around the globe. My group of about 9 people supports desktop software applications, and tests new applications to ensure that they will successfully integrate into our environment. We need to deal with multiple OSs, multiple versions of applications, and multiple work environments will all levels of connectivity. We’re not the help desk, but we take on issues they can’t resolve, so we do end up doing lots of end-user support.

Some of us have two computers, so we can do our day to day work on a relatively stable system, and still have easy access to a testbed system, which is used to test new applications, document processes using apps not on main system, develop training materials, reproduce problems, and so on.

Management has looked at the TCO (ack!) for those “extra” systems, and decided that the cost is too high, and that they can spend the money more efficiently if we’re limited to a single system. We can deal with the multiple configurations we have to support by swapping out hard drives, or by using a small number of lab systems, shared by the entire support organization.

I contend that the cost of the extra computer, even when you throw the kitchen sink into the TCO calculations, is dwarfed by the decrease in efficiency caused by having to shut down, swap disks, and restart any time I need to work in a different configuration, or figure out how the lab systems are set up, get them into a useful config, and get to work. Then there’s the fact that when I’m in the lab, I’m not available by phone or email, so problems that users or others in the support organization have won’t get answered as quickly.

I’m told that this isn’t an issue of my efficiency, it’s that I want to keep my unnecessary “conveniences”, but that they’re too expensive to continue. How can I get them to realize how short-sighted this is?

– Asked to work harder, not smarter

Dear Smarter …

The answer to your question depends on whether the decision-makers in question are amenable to facts and logic. If they are, the answer is simple:

“I think you’re using average TCO numbers, which don’t apply to these machines. For most people in the business, TCO includes my time and the time of my colleagues that’s devoted to supporting their systems. That number also includes the cost of the systems you want to take away.”

“What you might not have taken into account is that if you take these systems away, my colleagues and I will have to spend more time on each call, because the support process will then have to include restoring our work systems to their original state, instead of our simply re-ghosting our test systems once we’re done.”

“One other factor you might not have taken into account: The TCO of these systems is radically lower than the average, for the simple reason that my colleagues and I are entirely self-supporting. In effect, the TCO is simply the purchase price divided by the number of years each system will be in use.”

That’s what to do if they’re receptive to logical argument. If they aren’t, perhaps you could try offering a compromise: Customize the one system remaining with a second hard-drive and boot manager (or just use a floppy to reboot to the second drive). Use the alternative boot as your test system. It isn’t as efficient as two systems, but it isn’t a disaster, either.

If they won’t go for the compromise and can’t be persuaded, my best advice is to acquiesce gracefully, and then to work just as hard as you do now, but no harder. A work slowdown in protest is, in my view, unprofessional and a bad habit to get into. I don’t, on the other hand, think you have any obligation to work longer days because a manager overrode your advice and best judgment on how you should do your work.

– Bob

——–