On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>wrote:
The trick to deailing with this as a propellorhead[sic] is to include a *monetized* estimate of the increased manpower OPEX of using the 'dog to work with' box. And a TCOS figure over the projected lifetime of the units. No need to 'fight' with management about it, just understand 'how' they make the decisions, and give them the informatin they need to make the decision come out 'your way'.
I'd say that the ethical thing to do is to give them the information they need to make a decision, not to get it your way. I see, for instance, people buying local closet switches from brand A when brand B is much, much cheaper (but lacks the prestige of brand A), had a perfectly workable management interface, and will perform identically, with similar support offered by both vendors. But they are an ACNA or whatever, or they've just heard of (insert brand here), so they buy it. Because it's easy and familiar. It's also possible that a web managed switch (which I despise) might actually be the right choice for a business - because factors other than a technologist's distaste might be important. Part of being ethical (and NOT like the business people we might all despise!) is to be honest. So we don't compare brand A to brand B unfairly. We don't inflate the cost of brand B by adding brand B's management infrastructure to the cost when we darn well know we just will need a minor tweak to our scripts that can already manage brand A. That sort of thing. I generally agree with what Robert said: It's about what makes sense to the business. If operating expenses will increase ("Well have to grow headcount by 3 to support this"), then bring that up. A caution though: "Takes less effort to run" doesn't equate to dollars (the question a former manager would ask me when I tried that line was, "So who do you think we should lay off then to get the dollar savings?" Fortunately he was a good manager who wasn't serious, but was rather trying to get me to think about what I'm saying). I like paychecks, which is why I work for a living - it's about the dollars. So it's not unreasonable for my management to also care about the money (since it's a key motivation for myself, after all!). Yes, I'm fortunate to do a job I love and get paid for it at the same time. I can say, for a CUI interface, operations over low-speed links (wireless VPN when I'm away from the office and in a bad cell zone, for instance) is likely important. So is ability to script common tasks to allow people like the help desk to do their jobs at low risk. Flexibility is also important - when I'm stuck with this piece of gear (which is shiny today) in 5-7 years, when it's not so shiny, is it going to have flexibility to last a bit longer if the business needs to conserve cash - or will a minor change in how we do business make this thing functionally obsolete? Relating to the discussion on the tier 1 mentor thread, someone who wants to go far in networking won't be married to a particular vendor or way of doing things. They'll excel and find ways to overcome challenges, including less than perfect equipment, that they might have to deal with. They'll do so in a way that makes the customer and their own management happy. A highly paid network engineer who complains about work being difficult probably won't do that. One that finds a $500 replacement for a $5000 router probably will stick around, provided they can actually deliver what they promised (the guy that puts the $500 replacement in only to have to replace it in a year with a $5000 router again won't go far, so be careful! And you better have figured in the real costs of running a network with $500 routers, not just the cost of the router).