[PLUG] Remote work on downed server ( Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: March PLUG Meeting: Anatomy of a Mailing List Meltdown )

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

The problem with that is that the assessment itself is biased.  If a business owner is doing the assessment they tend to bias against cost.

But, what happens if a customer calls at the very moment your receptionist's PC is crashed, and she says "sorry I can't help my computer is down"
And that customer says "no problem" hangs up, calls someone else, then over the next decade develops $200k of business with that vendor?

Lost opportunity cost.  It's not easy to quantify so the business owners doing the assessment on new gear tend to discount $downtimeRisk.  Which is why
So many small businesses remain small, to be perfectly frank.

Personally as a 1 man shop I'm OK with remaining small.  But if you are a small business owner who employs others, you have a responsibility to provide continued employment for them, and that means prioritizing $downtimeRisk.  At least, that's my take on it.

Ted

-----Original Message-----
From: PLUG <plug-bounces at lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of Paul Heinlein
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:39 AM
To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PLUG] Remote work on downed server ( Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: March PLUG Meeting: Anatomy of a Mailing List Meltdown )


>IT systems, like every other business asset, are assessed primarily from a risk-management POV, not a technological one. And, frankly, this is >appropriate. Business owners need justifications for expenses. 
>If spending ($cheapGear + ($serviceCall * 3) + $downtimeRisk) is lower than ($bestGear), then the argument for the best gear is dicey.