Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:14060 comp.cog-eng:865
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!avr
From: avr@mtgzz.att.com (a.v.reed)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: modern terminals (was: printf, data presentation)
Summary: Some figures on dollars and productivity
Message-ID: <4876@mtgzz.att.com>
Date: 11 Jan 89 19:55:15 GMT
References: <19@xenlink.UUCP> <7328@chinet.chi.il.us> <144@bms-at.UUCP> <9325@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Lines: 23

In article <9325@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> In article <5175@lynx.UUCP> m5@lynx.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
> >Wyse 50's cost just a little over $300.  I'd like to see you in a
> >meeting with my manager trying to convince him that it's a good idea to
> >spend six times more on your terminal than everyone else's.
> 
> And there seems to lie the real problem:  Harvard Business School-
> trained managers with their typically short-term, "bottom line",
> mentality.  How, indeed, is one to reduce the advantages of
> increased flexibility and convenience to a specific dollar value?

With figures. A programmer costs her employer about 100,000 dollars a
year in salary, benefits, plant, and cost of supervision. A Wyse 50
displays 24 lines; a blit (or 5620, 630 etc.) 62 or more. According to
the measurements of Reisel and Shneiderman (Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, August 10-15,
1987, in press at North-Holland) the same programmer will get her work
done 14% faster with a 60 line terminal than with a 22 line terminal.
So getting a 630 instead of a traditional terminal will save $ 14,000
per year in programmer time. Payback time is less than 2 months. How's
that for short-term bottom line?

				Adam Reed (avr@mtgzz.ATT.COM)