When you buy a new computer, when do you replace it? After a year? Five years? As needed?
At the city, they're doing it every three years - regardless of whether the computer is still in good working order. In the latest three-year cycle - from 2007 to 2009 - that cost $5.6 million.
This issue is similar to a few stories I wrote last week about the expense of cell phones/BlackBerries and office furniture (see my earlier post for links to those articles and discussion). On one hand, everybody knows that to do business in 2010, you need the right tools - and up-to-date computers are part of that.
On the other hand, the city replaces its entire fleet of computers like clockwork, regardless of what the machine has been used for. Everyone -- from an employee using a computer for emailing and word processing to someone opening large files or using complex programs -- gets a new computer on a regular basis.
Another thing to keep in mind is the city says many other municipalities are on the same type of replacement schedule. However, other public organizations in Hamilton, like McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, are replacing their computers as needed.
What do you think about the city's policy to replace computers every three years?
They are going to have more than one bag at the curb! I think the policy is excessive particularly when there are successful models to draw from that are less costly.
Posted by: JoanneB | 02/12/2010 at 10:06 AM
Here's a link to the web site of the company city hall is doing business with.
http://www.itxchange.com/itxchange/prodServ.asp?
Personally, I only replace my computer when it brakes down outside the warranty period (3 years).
Posted by: Markalanwhittle | 02/12/2010 at 10:25 AM
Considering a the abuse a computer can take that is used constantly, day in and day out, I don't think it sounds overly unreasonable. Maybe not ever computer needs to be replaced but I would think that a large number would be especially if the existing computers can not handle new software and programs that need to be run on it. I also find these stories to kinda sad. As citizens of this city we expect a certain level of service and professionalism from the City but seem to love to try and hinder their ability to do their jobs constantly by complaining about things we really have no knowledge of other than what the newspaper says. And than we turn around and complain when we don't get the results we want.
Posted by: CB | 02/12/2010 at 10:28 AM
Waiting for a computer to fail before replacing it may make sense in terms of your equipment budget alone, but it's not a light bulb. You can't always just pull another one out of the cupboard and continue with your day. Failures -- hard drive failures in particular -- can cause a lot of lost data and lost staff time (i.e. money) to replace it.
If an old computer is slowing down the work of your staff, then in the long run it's cheaper to make sure computers are kept up-to-date and in smooth running order. Staff time is more expensive.
Posted by: Dan Jelly | 02/12/2010 at 10:38 AM
If a unit has a three-year lifespan then you only replace one third of them EVERY year. That way your cost is spread evenly over time ie: 1.86 million a year instead of 5.6 million all at once. Anybody managing a fleet of anything will tell you it's a better way to manage your replacements.
What do they do with their vehicles?
Posted by: Old Fart | 02/12/2010 at 11:00 AM
The computer I am using for this comment is over 10 years old. I have replaced the hard drive 3 times only due to them becoming full and have burned out a couple of monitors. If the city paid $1000.00 for each computer that means we have 5,600 employees sitting at desks with computers if 5.6 million had to be spent. Maybe the city is paying way over market value for the computers or has too many employees at desks. Maybe half of these employees could have shovels bought for them and sent around the city to repair pot holes instead of sitting at a desk on the computer all day.
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 02/12/2010 at 11:16 AM
OPERATING SYSTEMS ON COMPUTERS ARE GOOD FOR AT LEAST 7YEARS. EVEN WITH PUTTING ON NEW SOFTWARE. 500 BUCK COMP. CAN HANDLE ANY SOFTWARE THE CITY CAN TRHOW AT IT.
INSTEAD THEY PAY 1200BUX FOR JUNK AND INFLATED SOFTWARE PRICES .
I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WORK AT HOME WITH 9 YEAR OLD COMP. AND CAN HANDLE ANY THE GOVERNMENT SOFTWARE.
SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO DEFRAG THE COMPUTER,OR REFORMAT,.
BUT THATS TO CHEAP FOR A GOVERNMENT THAT LOVES TO SPEND TAXPAYERS MONEY
Posted by: kevv | 02/12/2010 at 12:05 PM
I am detecting the smell of another E-Health boondoggle here. Any councillor with integrity should be demanding an audit of this contract to see if we are getting fair value for what is being paid. Another point is that if we are buying 5,600 computers then we have to buy 5,600 desks to put them on which is added to the furniture budget. To the members of council, this is an election year and this monkey is on the back of you all. To be a credible candidate for reelection you have to deal with this issue now and not pass a motion to put it off for the next council to deal with it. The city managers who arranged this contract should be sitting in front of council no later than tomorrow to defend their action. Who was wined and dined and maybe had other gifts lavished on them by the winner of the contract. Did the winner of the contracts name appear in the political donation lists filed by all councillors? Mayor Fred are you going to exercise some leadership here to get taxpayers value for their dollars. I think the citizens would rather see more city workers out on the street repairing roads, water mains and inspecting derelict buildings rather than be sitting at a desk on the computer all day.
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 02/12/2010 at 01:13 PM
Furniture...cell phones....now computers!! When will the madness stop????
Posted by: TerryS | 02/13/2010 at 08:31 AM
Emma: Can you fill us in as to where all the computers go when they are replaced.
Posted by: Michelle Hruschka | 02/13/2010 at 10:49 AM
My wife works at the hospital and periodically works at home. Like cityhall, the hospitals love to waste your money to. The recomended minimum system could run nasa, she works at home on a 10 year old system and it performs admirely. But then, we're not glutenous pigs, we also know how to defrag.
Posted by: ed | 02/13/2010 at 10:55 AM
Linux doesn't expire but I'd like to wish you a Happy Valentines and a Very Merry Family Day Emma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA4narr2wyE
PEACE
Posted by: WRCU2 | 02/14/2010 at 10:13 PM
Well I like to look at the big picture. Technology changes very fast with IT. New systems are faster (hence potentially more efficient workers), and more energy efficient (hence less electrical consumption). We all pay lots of taxes, just not sure this is the area that concerns me. Perhaps we can reduce the number of employees who work at a desk and get them on the street to do property standards, pot hole fixes or litter clean up.
Posted by: Ward 2 Resident | 03/08/2010 at 10:50 PM