Evan writes:

> Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  <snip>
>
>  >>  I know that cost of ownership is the issue; but it has generally been
my
>  >>  experience that management *doesn't* know that.
>  >>
>  >> - Evan
>
>  >Absolutely correct. No matter how sophisticated the buyer, or how much
>  >promise a particular piece of hardware or software may offer if it were
>  fully
>  >utilized, initial entry price is an overwhelmingly important quality
>  >nowadays. No one wants to spend more money than they have to -- and
buying
>  >cheap and being greatly disappointed later on down the road seems to be
as
>  >hard a habit to break as someone getting remarried four or five times.
Both
>  >are irrepressible expressions of hope over experience.
>  >
>  >Wirt Atmar
>
>  I don't think that "irrepressible expressions of hope over experience"
>  explains all such decisions -- I can think of some other explanations that
>  might also apply in any given situation:
>
>  1.  You know that your decision in a given situation is not the best one
>  possible in the log run, but it *is* the best one available considering
the
>  constraints in effect; for example I may want to buy a Corvette but have
>  only a Hyundai Accent budget -- I need a car so I can (1) buy an Accent,
(2)
>  lease a Corvette, knowing that I can't make the payments and that it will
be
>  repossesed, (3) buy a used Corvette cheap (which might mean buying someone
>  else's problems.  It goes without saying that I must know what I want
*and*
>  why I want it -- I must know my objectives.
>
>  2. As mentioned just above, you must know what your objective is.  Given
the
>  previous example, if my objective is to attract attention or soothe my ego
>  rather than have basic and reliable transportation, then it's reasonable
to
>  for me to get a Corvette that's either unreliable or destined to be
>  repossesed rather than a dull but reliable Hyundai Accent.
>
>  3. Many people seem not to look at long term costs -- i.e. cost of
>  ownership: only entry price. Similarly, many seem to look at cost rather
>  than value.
>
>  I think that in any given situation a rational person will choose the path
>  of least resistance, least cost, and most value; IMHO the difference
between
>  those who make good decisions versus those who make poor decisions is that
>  those who make good decisions have developed the ability -- whether
through
>  temperament, training, or experience -- to look farther down the road and
so
>  have a better idea of overall costs, risks, and benefits.
>
>  But then, some people aren't rational...
>

While I was clearly kidding around in my previous answer, the points Evan
raises are worth carefully considering. But there is a fourth and more
powerful reason that causes, I believe, most people, even the most rational,
to choose the least initial cost solution most of the time: it minimizes the
gamble that they are taking.

All of Evan's reasons above presume that you know and can delineate the costs
and benefits, both long- and short-term, of the decision that you are making.
But when it comes to something as technical and complicated as a computer
system that will permeate every aspect of the organization, most people
(including a sizeable proportion of this group) can't make anything but blind
faith judgements about what truly is the best thing to do next. The costs and
benefits are simply too hidden and/or too fog-draped to be clearly laid out
on a spreadsheet prior to purchase. When that inevitable fogginess is mixed
with freely admitted inexperience, the only "reasonable" path most people
will take will be something much closer to a least cost solution rather than
a large, up-front investment -- and then see if this first "toe in the water"
is working well enough to proceed with further investment.

Wirt Atmar