justification report
Running head: UPGRADING COMPUTERS I Upgrading Computers Student E. Example ENG 315 – Professional Communications Ed Buchanan, MFA February 16, 2015 UPGRADING COMPUTERS II Our Technology Company, Inc. 123 Getting An A Avenue – Charlotte, NC 28208 http://www.otc.com 16 February 2015 Mrs. Ivory Deaton, Head of Information Technology Charlotte Claims Corporation 2200 Corporate Drive Charlotte, NC 28208 Dear Mrs. Deaton: Here is the report that we previously discussed on February 5, 2015 regarding the various ways of improving overall computer performance within your company. Other members of my department were consulted for opinions, purchasing histories and purchasing sources while completing this analysis for you. This report shows that, while every situation must be individually evaluated for repair versus replacement, the overwhelming majority of computers can be repaired through component replacement rather than system replacement. This is a solution that we feel will serve the company well, both in reduced downtime for employees and cost effectiveness, among other considerations outlined in the report. I and my team have been pleased to prepare this report for you, Mrs. Deaton, and while working on it we have come to many interesting conclusions on how your computer systems can be upgraded to best serve your company. Please call me directly at 704.555.4031 anytime I can be of further service. Sincerely, Student E. Example Technology Consultant UPGRADING COMPUTERS III Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………. IV Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Terminology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Report Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Overview of Alternative ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Criteria ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Research Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Evaluation of Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Findings and Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 Recommendation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 UPGRADING COMPUTERS IV Executive Summary This report examines the potential of two methods for upgrading existing computer systems within the company; replacement of computer hardware components or replacement of entire computer systems after individual evaluation. The criteria used to determine the best method included cost, time, effectiveness, durability and the needs of the actual user. The results of the data analysis determined that both methods are feasible and both will ultimately be used. However the final determination of the report was that for the general needs of the company that computer hardware component replacement is the more optimal of the two choices in all categories it was evaluated. It is therefore recommended that Alternative A be chosen as the standard method for computer repair and upgrades. Running head: UPGRADING COMPUTERS 1 Problem Statement The Company’s IT department has become aware of an issue where many of our computers currently being used in the office are become older and less efficient. Many are in danger of total failure due to use and age of the existing hardware. This presents the potential for data loss should a system fail while in use and downtime for the employee while the system is inoperable until a suitable, temporary replacement can be located within the building at an empty workstation, assuming one is available. This situation also causes delays to the IT department’s daily schedule as these failures are not planned, but do require immediate resolution, often causing a backlog of scheduled work that had been planned for that particular day. Terminology “Computer Hardware/Components” – the physical internal pieces of the computer that control how quickly and efficiently a system can operate. “Computer System” – refers only to the computer “tower”, not including peripheral hardware such as keyboards, mice or monitors “RAM” – standing for Random Access Memory, this is a temporary form of memory storage (separate from hard drive storage) which determines how quickly data can be accessed and read by the computer. Report Overview This report was created to assist the IT department in determining which method for computer repair and computer upgrading was the most optimal for the company as a whole. The group was tasked with investigating which of the two currently used options held the most benefit for the company. The two options, heretofore referred to alternatives, currently used are Alternative A (Component Replacement) and Alternative B (Full System Replacement). The criteria by which the alternatives were judged were as follows: needs of the user, efficiency, durability, cost and time. Research methods would include individual evaluation of the system needing repair/upgrades and internet research (for current cost of components/full systems, shipping and delivery times) along with interviewing the user to determine their actual needs. Full evaluation of the alternatives revealed that Alternative A, Component Replacement, should be recommended since it offered the most advantages of all the criteria considered and would be the most commonly used method, although there will still be instances where Alternative B, System Replacement, will still be warranted. Not covered in this evaluation was any hardware issues related to peripheral devices such as mice, monitors, keyboards, etc. as these types of devices are relatively inexpensive and readily available from local retailers. UPGRADING COMPUTERS 2 Overview of Alternatives This issue has been discussed, at length, within the IT department and it is believed this problem can be minimized or eliminated through one of the following options: • Alternative A – Component Replacement: For this alternative, older systems and systems with problems reported by the user would be individually assessed for solutions through individual hardware component replacement. Often the issue with the computer is simply caused by a shortage of memory (RAM) or not enough disc space (hard drive). Components can easily be ordered and usually arrive in less than a week. The user would continue to use their existing system, but may experience some delays while new components are being installed. • Alternative B – Full System Replacement: For this alternative, individual assessment would still be required for older systems or those with reported problems. However, this method would not look to replace individual components, but would instead rely upon total system replacement for the user. The user would continue with their existing system until the new one arrived, and would experience no delay as replacement would be done when the user was at lunch/out of the office. The system being replaced would then be reimaged by the IT department and scheduled for use within the building at another work station or set in reserve as a back-up machine if the machine qualified. Criteria It has been agreed by the IT department that the following criteria should be used to determine the suitability of each alternative: Criterion 1 – The needs of the user: In addition to assessing computers, the department must also assess the needs of the user. Being able to determine what each computer is being used and the stress loads the user will put on it will greatly determine which method is best. For our computers being used by the graphics department or the reporting/data analyst teams, higher performing systems are a must. These teams can also afford little to no downtime or data loss when dealing with their computers. For standard users, such as call center, receptionists or data input teams, standard computers (or older re-imaged systems) are perfectly fine. Criterion 2 – Efficiency of the method: For efficiency, the consideration revolves around will the method solve the problem while causing the least amount of negative side effects possible. While negative side effects can happen with both alternatives, each brings with it different potential pitfalls. UPGRADING COMPUTERS 3 Criterion 3 – Durability of the method: When mentioning durability, the consideration is given to how long the method will last. With both alternatives, while there are no guarantees regarding durability or longevity, consideration must still be given to the standard life expectancy of each. Criterion 4 – The cost of the method: Which method is more cost effective will depend entirely upon the efficiency and durability described above. The alternative that is ultimately the most cost effective will also include the needs of the individual user of the machine requiring repair or replacement. Criterion 5 – Time to implement the method: The time to implement will differ based on the method chosen. Also to be considered for time will be the cost spent on shipping. To guarantee faster shipping will generally require paying more for shipping as described in cost. Research Methods The research methods involved would include the evaluation of the existing computers by a member of the IT department to determine the viability of the computer. Then online research would be done to determine the cost of the components requiring replacement versus a new whole system. For components, sites such as newegg.com, frys.com and tigerdirect.com would be consulted. For whole systems, standard computer manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard would be considered, in addition to the previously mentioned component sites which also sell fully constructed computers. As prices for computers, due to technology leaps and sales, are constantly changing, these prices will need to be evaluated each time an order is considered. The findings would be submitted, in writing, for approval prior to any order being placed. These findings would include costs for both methods so a determination can be made on a case by case basis. Evaluation of Alternatives The Needs of the User 1. Alternative A – As recently noted PC World magazine by Marco Chiappetta (2014), “the practical effectiveness of a particular PC upgrade – a faster processor or GPU, more memory, or a solid-state drive, say – depends to a large extent on how you use your system” (p. 41). For standard users, such as call center and data entry, component replacement is an acceptable practice as the component cost for these systems is low and are readily available. These items can frequently be found with sale prices and free shipping, while still being sent with the manufacturer warranty. 2. Alternative B – For higher end users, such as the graphics department, analytics and IT, new systems would generally be recommended. High end components are more expensive than components put in our standard user systems. As such, it would be more cost effective to purchase new systems for these users and then downgrade their existing systems to be utilized by standard users. This will increase the performance of our standard user machines while simultaneously providing better systems for our high end users. Efficiency of the Method UPGRADING COMPUTERS 4 1. Alternative A – Replacing individual components will result in upgrades specific to the problem and though it will cause a slightly longer downtime for the employee involved as the computer tower must be removed while the replacement takes place, the chances of data loss are minimal depending on the hardware being replaced. 2. Alternative B – With a full system replacement, the downtime for the employee will be no more than 10-15 minutes, but since all files and specific programs must be copied to the new system, the chances for data loss are increased. This can be somewhat alleviated if proper back-up precautions are taken ahead of time. Durability of the Method 1. Alternative A – For hardware replacement, while the new pieces will come with their own warranties, the components not replaced in the machine are still subject to failure and, depending on the failing part, can (at worst) cause the entire machine to be lost or (at best) to suffer downtime while additional components are ordered to repair the now outof-commission machine. 2. Alternative B – With total system replacement, this is not as much of a concern, but is always a possibility when dealing with multiple component electronics. The primary difference will be that in a new system, all components will have a new warranty versus only the pieces that would be replaced in the first method. The Cost of the Method 1. Alternative A – While, in general, component replacement will be the less expensive method, this is only an upfront cost as eventually all machines will warrant full replacement. An example of component replacement cost, and how costs fluctuate, is shown in a Solid State Drive purchase. “About a year ago, a top model would have run you approximately a buck per gigabyte. This year the cost is 80 cents per gigabyte, and sometimes even less” (Jacobi, 2014, p. 85) . This emphasizes how quickly component costs can decrease making replacement much more cost effective than it used to be. 2. Alternative B – A new entire system will cost more than individual components, typically in the $500 to $800 range though it can be more for higher end systems, but as previously mentioned, the entire system will now be back under the manufacturer warranty (generally 1-2 years) and have a standard life of 3 to 5 years though it is sometimes longer and sometimes shorter. Cost can have an effect on the time to implement as shipping rates will vary depending on how quickly the new system is required to be delivered. Time to Implement the Method 1. Alternative A – For component replacement, the time will revolve around how long it takes to select/order and have delivered the new components. As mentioned previously, delivery times will vary depending on how much is spent on shipping. Free shipping options are available quite often, but this option will generally take 3-5 business days for delivery. There will also be the time involved for a member of the IT department to remove the old components and install the new. 2. Alternative B – For a total system replacement, the time involved will be determined by selection, ordering and delivery of the new system. As noted in Alternative A, shipping UPGRADING COMPUTERS 5 times will vary based on shipping methods/cost chosen. Also to be considered is the time to transfer the user files and install required software. The time necessary to transfer files and install software will vary by user and will be dependent upon how much custom software is being used. For standard users, a typical transfer/install will take less than an hour. For more advanced users, it can take upward of 4 to 5 hours. Findings and Analysis While both available alternatives (repair and replacement) offer desirable options, they also come with potential negatives. When determining which alternative is the most effective, many factors were taken into consideration as noted above. Our team considered the cost of each method (including potential for delivery charges), the overall effectiveness, how long each could last, the time involved and the upsides and downsides of each. After careful consideration of all factors that influenced a decision, the conclusion reached has been that the cost effectiveness and overall effectiveness of the method will always be driven by which user a computer is being sent to and the current state of the market for computer components and pre-built systems. All other factors will be based solely upon which method is chosen. However, as standard users within the company far outweigh the number of higher end users and (as shown in Figure 1) both methods weigh fairly equally across all considerations, our suggestion is to generally defer to hardware component replacement over system replacement. System replacement will be considered on an as needed basis only rather than the status quo. After reviewing the available information, our team has also come to the conclusion that a “phase out” period will ultimately be necessary to determine when older machines within the company no longer warrant upgrades. Our suggestion for these machines is to allow the IT department to “clean” them and remove all company related software and information, thus returning the machines back to manufacturer defaults. It can then be considered to sell those machines that are still functional either to interested employees or perhaps as charitable donations. This will allow the company to recoup some funds spent on hardware or for additional tax write offs. A graphical depiction of these findings has been provided as a summary of our findings, see Figure 1 below: Criterion Alternative A (Component Replacement) Alternative B (System Replacement) Needs of the User Most likely met Definitely met Efficiency of the Method Generally effective Definitely effective Durability of the Method Moderate-High Moderate-High Cost of the Method Less expensive More expensive Time to Implement Method Generally very low Potentially high Total Feasibility Moderate to High Low to Moderate UPGRADING COMPUTERS 6 Figure 1: Graphic Analysis of Findings Recommendation It is recommended that the company consider Component Replacement as the standard for system repair and upgrades unless it is determined through individual analysis of the computer system and user that full system replacement is warranted. It is also further suggested that all systems be catalogued by age, user and general condition based on workstation identification and this information be consistently updated. Through this form of monitoring, it is the belief of the IT department that many hardware failures can be avoided, thus saving the company time and money from unforeseen system failures. UPGRADING COMPUTERS 7 References Fix It Fast! (Cover story). (2013). PC World, 31(8), 48-58. Chiapetta, M. (2014). Tested: Which PC upgrades pay off the best. PC World, 32(6), 40-47. Jacobi, J. L. (2014). 12 PC UPGRADES FOR UNDER $300. PC World, 32(4), 83-96.
Justification report
Student Name: Iswor Thapa
ENG 315
Professor : Ed Buchanan, MFA
Date: Aug12 2015
Justification report
Root problem
Over the years, we have had our clients decide on the kind of accounting methods that they want their accounts handled and at most times they make us use one or more accounting methods. Most of the clients are guided by what according to research, they consider as convenient. However, according to most of the complaints that are getting received, some of the clients are making huge losses in their businesses. Over the twenty years that this firm has been operational, there is a tendency of the starting businesses to remain in operation for three years and then they are bankrupt. I am for the opinion that the greater problem that leads to the demise of these businesses is the accounting criteria that are being applied for the various businesses firms. If the problems that were leading to the exit of the clients in the market were not operational accounting but business running related, then our firm may be able to retain a lot of clients and therefore increasing our profitability as our operations increases.
Alternative solutions
Most businesses get to the blunt side due to the tax burden on their operations. To be able to arrive at the required tax, we usually use the accounting periods that usually accounts annually and the operations that have taken place in that time flame work. Here are two accounting methods that have to be adopted. There is the Accrual accounting method and there is the cash accounting method. Accrual accounting method is a method whereby all transactions are updated immediately they have occurred (Gibson & TMW Media Group, 2009). This is in disregard to the time when there is the delivery of the item or the item is paid for. On the other hand, the cash system is where you update transactions when the delivery has been made or the payment has been remitted. For instance if a sale was made on October and the payment was made in January, according to the Accrual method, the update will be made in October but in the cash system, the update will be made in January.
Our main casualties are the small business entities. To clarify on the need to settle for one accounting method for these business entities, we could set criteria for these businesses and see if there will be changes in the profitability in the next fiscal year (Chesla, 2000).
Criteria of choosing from the alternatives
For the cash system and the Accrual we can subject businesses with the following, first they should have a turnover of less than three million dollars per year. Secondly, they should have a tax levy pay of not more than a million dollars per annum. Thirdly, we can consider any enterprise that could run on a cash system or the Accrual system regardless of the tax figure that it is subject to. These enterprises could include scholarly institutions and charity organizations. The fourth consideration could be firms that have always made their tax levies on either the basis of cash system entirely or the accrual system entirely. These we subject them to the preference that they have always held. Lastly we could consider enterprises on the basis of preferences to avoid a contradictory situation with the clients on the basis of handling their accounts. In this the firm will have to be consulted and they shall give a feedback on what they would rather have (Aristotle et al, 2011).
Conducting the research
At the beginning of the fiscal year, the firms that will be chosen in the above test hypothesis will be classified for their transaction to be considered under the cash or the Accrual systems. For the fiscal year, all their transactions will strictly be in the above criteria, this should be done for the next three fiscal years. Three years is the threshold time framework that has been identified for a joining business to exit the business. At the end of this time, the businesses that have been under evaluation will be investigated as whether existing or demolished. How they shall be fairing and coping up with the tax system (Hubbard, 2007). The system that will have yielded a greater percentage of success will become the guiding principle. When the favorite alternative is chosen as an accounting firm it should be the firm’s principle to give the upcoming firms on the accounting method that would best suit for their existence in the market.
References
Aristotle, ., Mayhew, R., Mirhady, D. C., & Anaximenes, . (2011). Problems. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Chesla, E. L. (2000). Practical solutions for everyday work problems. New York: Learning Express.
Gibson, J., & TMW Media Group. (2009). Work problems. Venice, CA: TMW Media Group.
Hubbard, L. R. (2007). The problems of work: Scientology applied to the workaday world. Los Angeles, Calif: Bridge Publications, Inc.
…………..Answer preview…………..
Over the years, we have had our clients decide on the kind of accounting methods that they want their accounts handled and at most times they make us use one or more accounting…………
APA
826 words
