Interesting study from the New York Times - trying not to make post too long winded...just want to get down some ideas here.
I read New York Times tonight about a study called “Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution” stating .... "Money spent on computing technology delivers gains in worker productivity that are three to five times those of other investments", a couple of thoughts come to mind:
- The 69 page report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation was sponsored by companies such as I.B.M., Cisco Systems and eBay, as well as by the Communications Workers of America, which stand to benefit from the study.
- If the money spent of Computers is worth 3 to 5 times more than any other way companies could spend or the money... maybe....laptops should be replaced more often.
In fact, in some companies I know of, Laptops and related computer equipment are replaced every 3 or 4 years - I think that's too long - every 18 months is more like it.
Often, there's no funding for backup drives or dual drive mirrored systems and on average, there are at least one or two hard drive failures within a two year period - much of that failure - can be avoided by replacing laptops and desktops (but especially laptops) more frequently.
Lately, I've come to believe that applications used for email ought to be Server based - entirely. The most important functions to make totally network based are email, IM and Calendar connectivity - make them entirely browser based (much as Gmail, Google Talk and Google Calendar are today) - accessible anywhere via authentication.
Actually, Sun Microsystems tried to do this about 10 years ago with the Network Appliance but it fell flat - it's not a new idea. I think we've come back to the point where that makes sense again - but in an entirely different setting. Sure, it can be argued ... if everything is on a server why should Laptops be replaced more often? Good point.
However, older systems run slow...and crash more often...interfering with getting stuff done.....
I bet there's even metrics for this ....
So that's what I get out of this study...
"....The most provocative and controversial parts of the report, “Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution,” are its claim of extraordinary productivity gains from investments in computing technology and its policy focus on industry sectors."
I hope the report leads to needed changes in the workplace.
Interestingly, I've seen analysis that shows there is virtually no difference in failure rates in PC's (including laptops) based upon ages out to three years. Logically, one would think more stuff would break later, but in the (large) analysis that I have seen, it wasn't the case. Yes, I was surprised.
The three year turnaround is, I believe, a leasing convention. Each of the PC's is on a three year lease and those get switched out or not at the end of the lease based on whatever is happening financially at the moment.
This is an interesting post. I'd be curious how the study defines "productive." I probably can't function very well without a PC anymore, but I don't think I'm necessarily more productive because I have one. When everyone has one, productivity is relatively neutral based upon the tool (read: PC).
The real question is since you now have a PC, what makes you more productive compared to others?
Posted by: Scot Herrick | March 21, 2007 12:01 PM | Permalink to Comment