Reliability is almost everything, when it comes to technology infrastructure, and even technology device we interact with regularly. The fastest gaming computer money can buy is quickly abandoned if it crashes every 15 minutes. Likewise, the fastest possible wifi isn't worth very much to an organization if it drops their connections all the time.
Over the years of talking to many thousands of users and technical administrators, we've realized two important aspects of technology planning.
Users, including COO's and technical leads, like and seek out good specifications, and gravitate toward 'the best' they can get.
When asked to prioritize values for systems, reliability is always one of the first two mentioned traits.
The first item isn't surprising, since most people like to believe they're getting 'the best' when they're able to. Neither is the second item surprising.
The real insight is that these two planning approaches almost never occur together. Technology planners in non-profits are often concerned with #1, sometimes also distracted by the best specs for the best price. This is reasonable, in a fiscally responsible context.
But there's a false assumption operating between these two planning aspects, that the most reliable equipment is also the best spec'd, fastest, newest, etc.
We really enjoy debunking this assumption. We regularly provide 2-3 year old business-class desktops for our clients (when appropriate to their context and needs). With an SSD and a cleanly configured operating system, these systems are entirely indistinguishable from 'new' systems, in any way that matters to the end users.
For these systems, reliability is key. Performance was important, but well down the list versus reliability. And unless they have very specific, unique needs that we'll help plan for, most users preference reliability above everything else.
Comments