-4

Is it possible to do both these things: To improve the quality of the IT services delivered To reduce the long term cost of service provision

To improve quality you need to spend time or money. If you reduce costs, you reduce quality either directly or through increase in response times. Or another way: fast, good, and cheap, and pick any two?

closed as off-topic by Chris E, DJClayworth, IDrinkandIKnowThings, jimm101, mhoran_psprep Aug 11 '16 at 17:25

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Real questions have answers. Rather than explaining why your situation is terrible, or why your boss/coworker makes you unhappy, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, click here." – Chris E, DJClayworth
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Hi, This site isn't really for questions about 'how to do your job'. This is for HR-like stuff. You could try asking this on our Project Management or Programmers sites. – DJClayworth Aug 11 '16 at 16:33
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about navigating the workplace as described in the help center – IDrinkandIKnowThings Aug 11 '16 at 16:46
-3

As long as you are looking at long term costs Improved Quality can decrease the costs. Spending more on development of software to ensure that the software is well architected, should be easier to extend/fix and is as bug free as possible can cost more up front but save money in the long run. Things like documentation, comments in the code, good requirements, unit tests, etc all cost time/money up front but produce much better software in the long run. Often times ignoring these things completely leads to project failure or ballooning costs much quicker than you'd expect.

On a less software development side of things building infrastructure anticipating growth can be more expensive up front but save money down the line when that growth does occur. Buying a more capable SAN up front costs more but you avoid having to buy a second one when you max out a smaller SAN.

From an IT help desk perspective it can hold true too. Spending more to develop good tools, build good processes or even train the users more costs something up front but can save money in the long term. We've all seen the disasters that IT departments can become when they are running from emergency to emergency just trying to keep things afloat because someone years back decided to save a little money then. Money spent developing an automated process to handle something, should when done right, end up saving money long term as that process no longer needs to be handled manually.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.