* Improvements are meant to be for the better, yes?
Making a change for the better sometimes is rocky road. This was especially brought home to Steve recently when he saw the following sign at his internist’s office: “We have installed a new computer system to better serve our patients. We appreciate your patience and understanding should you encounter a delay.”
Excuse me? The improved system is going to provide worse service?
Of course, we know the intent of the notice was to inform the patients that they would eventually get better service, and the bumps along the way would be worth it. But it also brings to the forefront a fundamental issue: When is an improvement sufficient to justify making a change in the network?
For years, Steve has admitted that when he worked in operations for the University of North Carolina’s statewide network, it also ran best when he was on vacation because there were no “improvements” being made to the network. And Jim always points out that the cost of a new PC is trivial in comparison to the time-cost of loading programs and configuring the system.
Some changes are obvious. Most companies found out in the 1980s that by installing what was then a state-of-the-art T-1/E-1 network the system would pay for itself in about three to six months, and the impact on users was truly minimal. Similarly, moving from point-to-point leased lines to frame relay had an extremely attractive ROI.
But as systems get more complex, so does the ROI. In fact, most of our recent studies have showed that a “soft” ROI – where the benefits don’t have to be calculated precisely – can suffice rather than requiring a “hard” dollar-for-dollar. Still there are parameters that must be met.
We’d love for you to share your ideas with us and we’ll pass them along. How do you go about deciding whether an improvement is sufficient to justify the investment? And how important is transparency for your users?
