Often the measurement used to confirm a good investment is the increase in productivity and associated revenue that an investment in technology will produce. We can share case after case where investments in technology have increased productivity.

One of our clients invested $3,000 in a dual monitor configuration that we recommended. This allowed an 18-month delay in the hiring of additional personnel. This client had originally determined that two additional employees would be needed to relieve some of the workload burying existing personnel. After factoring in benefits, these two new employees would have represented an approximate $66,000 annual cost to our client. By streamlining the workflow and productivity of existing personnel this client realized a savings of $63,000 in the first 12 months following the $3,000 investment. This client saved money while creating a happier, more productive working environment for existing employees.

Another of our clients had about a dozen workers taking two to three additional breaks throughout the day because their PCs were locking up. Given the estimated restart time for these computers, the company was losing to downtime about 2083 hours annually. We recommended an $800 investment in additional RAM memory for these PCs. It cost this client approximately $.38 per hour to recover the 2083 hours of lost work each year. Money well spent.

The above examples are the easily justified. Justification may be more difficult when the investment is going toward the replacement of software that seems to satisfy your current production flow, or toward some memory that will make a workstation run faster (that's it, just run faster), or for a replacement monitor might cost $120, but the $300 model looks nicer.

We recently moved a client to Windows 2003 Small Business Server ® . One of the benefits of this move was the instant inclusion of a corporate Intranet web site. The Human Resources manager immediately began moving procedure, policy, and other documents onto the web site to make them easily accessible to all employees. With easily attainable documents the HR manager had hopes of seeing the traffic flow through his office greatly reduced. His estimate was that easily accessible documents with good written procedures could save him as much as 2 hours per week. The 100 plus hours of additional time that he was estimating to be saved would be used in pursuing a number of projects designed to reduce company expenditures. If he is successful in using his "extra" time the company will gain exponentially from the investment in new software, from just this one source.

So what if a PC runs faster? We often hear this question during our strategic planning sessions with clients. Employees may not have to "wait" between keystrokes, or "wait" for their programs to open. Many employees we encounter are moving between multiple programs throughout the day. If the action of moving between programs occurs 150 times in a workday, and the employee waits two seconds at each move, that's 300 seconds, or 5 minutes that the employee is not being productive. Extrapolating those figures that waste of time will cost the company 25 minutes per work week or 1,250 minutes per year. That's 20.8 hours wasted in a year's time per employee. At $15 per hour, not including benefits or other overhead, that two- second delay costs the company $312 per year per employee. This does not include the intangibles, such as the employee frustrations that develop as a result of a "slow" computer.

More extreme cases we have encountered include graphics/CAD programs and multiple streaming video over the Internet. We have seen graphics designers experiencing 90-second to five-minute delays in opening files or moving pictures within a document. The same is true for CAD operators working on under-powered workstations. If those delays are repeated throughout the day, the effect on efficiency/productivity and morale can be severely impacted.

Watch your employees someday. Get to know their daily working experiences. Look for the delays that affect morale and bottom-line.

Monitor replacement is an issue we are seeing more of lately. The combination of an aging workforce, significant advances in technology, and competitive pricing has provoked serious consideration with regard to monitor size and format. Is the older CRT technology more cost-effective than the newer LCD? Study after study has proved that the quality of the monitor is directly correlated with eye strain and the many symptoms associated with that issue. Older employees or anyone interacting with a monitor all day can relate the positive effects of moving from an older style CRT to the newer LCD style screens.

I recently spoke with an office manager of an insurance firm who resigned from her previous employer in large part due to those issues. Her previous employer had allowed the quality of the tools that impact working conditions to deteriorate to the point that it was a battle just to get her work done efficiently. With her job change old, small, poor quality monitors and slow PCs were replaced by clear displays and fast equipment that allowed her to accomplish her work quickly, to her satisfaction. Sometimes return on investment can only be measured in the less tangible realm of workplace satisfaction and employee retention. If you have questions regarding what technology can do for your bottom-line, call Micro Visions. We can assist you with defining your strategic requirements and will objectively recommend the most cost-effective solutions for your business.