Previous | Table of Contents | Next |
Options for system reliability include:
Optional Items | Cost | Description | |
---|---|---|---|
Spare system | $9,250 | Backup Set | |
Replace Service Contract | $1,300 | Annual Contract for Unit Replacement within 24 Hours | |
Onsite Survey and Installation Charge | $4,000 | To Ensure All Required Equipment is Available for Installation | |
Installation and Maintenance Training Cost | $1200 | Training for Actual Installation |
Suggested options to purchase are:
Suggested Options | Cost | Description |
---|---|---|
Onsite Survey and Installation | $4,000 | To Ensure the Installation Is Well Planned |
Installation and Maintenance | $2,400 | Sending Two People for Installation and Training Maintenance Training |
Total Costs: | $6,400 |
Several new factors became apparent during the research process. These became part of the decision- making process: the availability of fiber repeaters with no other designated use; discovery of an existing infrared installation at a company location on the East Coast; and building management, fearing harm to its employees, resisting the use of infrared lasers.
To complete the analysis, these items were included in the final recommendation. The analysis of the technology benefits is provided to gain insight from the available technology and present the applicable situation scenarios for each option. (Exhibits 2 and 3 are grid comparisons of these technologies.)
The comparison of the technologies alleviates concerns for data security, as all three methods provide for secure data. Both of the wireless technologies, however, offer a lower data reliability factor on a daily basis. The weather in the region of the remote corporate location is subject to dramatic shifts, which are detrimental to the wireless technologies. Obviously, electrical outages could affect the users in the same way for physical wire options; these outages would also effect any work they might conduct.
All three technologies are available to install within the time frames required, with the possible exception of the FCC licensing required for the microwave option. Certainly, the licensing for the microwave option could have a serious impact on the ability of the staff to work on the scheduled date. This is a high consideration from a work- due- date standpoint and the organizations potential liability for missed due dates.
It would be advantageous to own the equipment as offered by either the microwave or infrared options for net costs, given the organizations business goals to downsize in the near future. The high up- front costs for the technologies were also noted. This investment in materials would have to be to the long- term advantage of the organization.
Costs are certainly a consideration, but they are not always the prime consideration. The following cost comparisons are based on the pure costs of the three systems for network data connectivity. Items to be considered in the final cost estimates include estimates for equipment required for connectivity, purchased equipment depredation, and use of any existing equipment.
Total Cost of fiber optics | $19,600 |
Total Cost of microwave | $20,950 |
Total Cost of infrared | $28,600 |
The depreciation on the purchased equipment averages approximately 50% based on the schedule of depreciation that was current at the time of decision making. This would reduce the cost of the microwave by $10,475 and infrared options by $14,300. A significant savings in using fiber optics would come through permission to use the existing company fiber optic repeaters for the remote location installation. This would reduce those costs by $11,200. These considerations factored in yield the following numbers:
Total Cost of fiber optics | $8,400 |
Total Cost of microwave | $10,475 |
Total Cost of infrared | $14,300 |
From a cost comparison aspect, fiber optics would be the most cost-effective method of installation.
To recap, the considerations for the recommended solution must address the following issues in order of importance. The solution must:
Each of the technologies was reviewed based on the above criteria. The recommendation discussed in this article was based on this specific situation and may not meet criteria for other situations. The technical notes following the recommendation provides highlights for future technology reviews.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next |