|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Robert Bunney wrote:
> If these
> same people were working on creating a major upgrade to an existing
> product or if these folks were building a new product, I would be
> targeting *at least* 3x the cost of the staff. In other words, if staff
> costs an average of $100,000 a head, I would be building products that I
> believed would bring in at least $300,000 a head per year.
This wouldn't be the case, though, if *new* people were hired to take care of
this, rather than using exiting staff who would be taken away from more
important projects. No company in their right mind would reassign them in these
circumstances, although I realize that not every company necessarily is. If
there is opportunity cost here, it would be in terms of the money being used to
subsidize the increased support, which may or may not be economically feasible.
The bottom line, though, is that firms have a limited amount of resources that
they can profitably assign to this function, which will probably fall short of
what would be ideal from a user's perspective.
Regards,
A.J.
|