The Corporate Monitor Issue
Some time ago I worked in the IT department of a company that had a corporate standard of two 27″ FUllHD (either 1920*1080 or 1920*1200) monitors for the desktop. I was pushing to make the standard be one 32″ 4K monitor or the two cheaper monitors. They ended up making one 27″ 4K monitor an option which was still a better option for many users than two FullHD monitors due to having twice the pixels even though it had half the screen area. It was a surprise to me when hardly anyone took up that option.
One man who worked there brought a wide curved monitor from home and ran with one of the FullHD monitors on each side of that. As an employee in the IT department I had concerns about expensive personal equipment being used in the office regarding who’s going to pay the bill if it gets broken. But I was assured that it was his old monitor that he didn’t need after buying a better one for gaming at home and he wouldn’t be too upset if something happened to it.
This isn’t the only time I’ve witnessed such problems of companies paying large salaries for skilled people and providing poor equipment for them to do the work. One previous time I raised a OH&S issue because the outdated monitors were so blurry but the company determined that the monitors wouldn’t cause health problems and spending $150 per employee on better replacements was a waste of money.
Computer hardware tends to become cheaper over time and one thing that has become really cheap recently is portable monitors. Kogan has a 15.6″ FullHD monitor with USB-C and mini-HDMI inputs for $89 [1]. It wouldn’t be difficult for someone to put one of those on each side of the monitor or monitors that their employer provides and put them in a desk drawer at the end of the day to minimise risk. The same Kogan page has a 16″ monitor with 2560*1600 resolution for $189.
Company Ownership
I previously wrote about the potential benefits to companies in not owning all those keyboards, mice, and headsets when they could just give each employee the money and have them buy their own [2]. I don’t think we are at the stage where that can be applied to monitors as the cheapest price for a decent monitor is about $500 which takes it out of the disposable price range that keyboards and mice are in. Also from an IT support perspective there are real support issues with monitors and cables having compatibility issues. But paying small amounts of money to reimburse employees who buy cheap portable monitors to supplement their main monitor is a more reasonable option. For some people that will allow noteworthy improvements in work performance.
Who Will it Help?
I don’t think that adding such portable monitors will directly help the majority of workers. I think that to maximise performance and efficiency we need to chase the long tail of improvements. Big monitors, really big monitors (65″ at a larger distance), multiple monitors, standing desks, and whatever else people want.
There was some research from Microsoft some years ago (back when 27″ was a really big monitor) showing that some tasks had a 50% increase in performance with a larger monitor. Now that 27″ is about the smallest monitor size commonly available the potential for improvement is reduced. Probably most workers now already have monitors that provide the benefits to them that the “big monitors” in Microsoft research provided. But there will always be some portion of the user base who will benefit. If you can get a 50% performance boost for 1% of the users that’s really worth doing. If you can get a 0.5% benefit for 100% of the users that is also worth doing and will theoretically give equal benefits.
Costs of Employees
It is claimed that the total cost of an employee including all overheads of management and providing office facilities etc amounts to twice their base salary. If that is the case then a minimum wage employee in Australia costs $100k per year, someone at the low end of the IT pay scale costs $200k, and someone at the high end of the IT scale is around $400k. It seems clearly worthwhile to spend $1000 in hardware purchases for a $100k employee who declares that it will really help their work, anything which is noticeable to the user is going to be more than a 1% difference in performance.
For someone at the high end of the IT pay scale spending $40,000 on hardware to improve their performance could pay for itself. This is not only due to direct return on investment but because the people who do such work are often in key roles in important projects. If there’s too much work for one person on minimum wage to do then you just hire another person. You can’t hire another senior IT person and have them just do the work, it can take months to get up to speed.
But as management in corporations seems unable to recognise this cheap hardware employees can afford to buy with their own money can bridge the gap.
Job Interviews
In future when interviewing for jobs I’ll ask about the hardware that’s to be used. I won’t say “I’m not interested in this job offer because you don’t respect your employees enough to buy adequate hardware”, but I may make it a condition of working at a company that the hardware on my desk will not be obsolete.
Log in
