VDI C.O.P™

Coefficient of Productivity

The New Math of the Desktop

A [draft] Manifesto

 2009

J.Tyler “t-rex” Rohrer

We are compelled to move beyond the old math of the desktop not merely for reasons of justification of a new wave of available and potentially useful technologies, but rather because often times advancement of science leave us without proper vernacular and computation to accurately describe what we have just created.

Furthermore, we learn and adjust to our new nomenclatures not because they are clever marketing rouses but because they are functionally relevant, and make conversations of our subject matter contextually relevant. In addition, inclusion of new methods of explanation does not always compel us to abandon old ones.

While my economics professors told me that Economists existed to make Astrologers look credible,  when one observes organization after organization struggling to justify what they instinctively know can be accretive to their business, well, one must speak up. Here say I:

CAPEX: The Capital Cost Expenditure to acquire technology

OPEX: The Operational Cost Expenditure to deliver the technology in a useful way

C.O.P™ -  Coefficient of Productivity – the net incremental GAIN any new technology delivers to its users (both end users and administrators)

This coefficient shall be an index, inclusive of (but not requiring) any number of metrics including security, agility, recoverability, availability, ease of management, burdens on the organization (a negative) each representing a fractional percentage of 100% as measured by its impact on the adopter, and INTENDED to be customized for the specific adopter of any technology.  Theoretically there is no limit to the COP that may result from this exercise-meaning some technologies, sufficiently understood and applied, will yield COPs in any, and often significant degree. (think of the introduction of the PC, telephone, fax machine)  Conversely, it is possible that any technology will / can result in a negative COP.  This can be both because of its burden on productivity, or, (and the subject of further exploration) the mis-use, improper deployment, or, erroneous application to incorrect users.

To calculate the true effect of, and in consideration of, any new technology, one must take CAPEX/COP = True CAPEX

Ie)  CAPEX = $1000

        C.O.P = 1.097 (a 9.7% NET GAIN in productivity)

        TRUE CAPEX =  $1000 / 1.097 = $911.57

An interesting effect of this line of reasoning is that one can also use COP to look at the EMPLOYEE YIELD that results from the proper introduction of new technology to an end user (OPEX covers the gains to the admin).

Ie) If an organization can make a non-revenue producing employee who earns $100,000  1% more productive because of any new technology the generative effect to organization is mathematically $1000.  Expanded over hundreds or thousands  of users, this effect becomes meaningful.

Furthermore, in revenue producing employees – if an organization can enable a $1,000,000 revenue-generating employee capable of closing merely .5% more sales, this yields an effective return to the organization of  $5000. (and could also have a contributory effect on the fixed cost exploration above).

Clearly, the methodology previously used in the desktop space that “I can buy a $399 PC  why would I buy a $750 virtual desktop?” is flawed, and actually out of context.  I liken this to “ Why would I buy a $2000 personal computer when I have a perfectly sufficient $199 type-writer?”

A major underlying assumption of this manifesto is that the explored technology is/can be incremental to productivity gain. The absence of  tangible, and measureable gains compels us to abandon potential technologies. (yes, a car with 6 wheels will drive, but not more productively than a car with 4 wheels perhaps)

In addition, comparative analytics are also needed to not only look at the true cost of a new technology-in this case using COP, or, its productivity gains to the organization, but also this relative to the legacy or current solutions deployed.

One must conduct this analysis not in the absence of OPEX (operating) but rather in concert with such observation.  OPEX is often dismissed as “soft costs” and for that matter not taken seriously because such (if any) savings are not always visible, assignable, or, quite frankly, because the math to obtain such has previously been difficult. Understandably we have previously been exploring (at least in the desktop space, however, I suspect in most new technologies) OPEX and struggling to claim the instinctive productivity COP now describes, in those numbers.  Therefore, the New Math could look like:

OLD:

CAPEX + OPEX = TCO (and thus an Internal Rate of Return could be calculated)

NEW:

CAPEX/COP + OPEX= TRUE TCO (however, while we capture the net productivity gain of the technology and incorporate it into a cost analysis – we have NOT accounted for the incremental revenue possible, or burden employment costs avoided, by the technology) * This will be explored in a separate paper exploring employee YIELD under the methodology of COP*

While this paper does not intend to, in two pages, solve the current debate on the gainful utility of new desktop technologies, when one observes logic that can be improved, one is compelled to speak up.

Therefore, before the critics have their way with “COP” and the salvos of slings and arrows fly, I invite any and all for collaborative and constructive debate in the interest of perfecting this NEW MATH of the Desktop.

T.Rex