Most mid-level or senior software engineers make in the ballpark or in excess of $100,000. So I find myself scratching my head when I hear of engineers that are provided with sub-par systems that are anything slower than the fastest money can buy. And often, the difference between a mid-range machine and a high-end machine isn't very much, which makes it doubly puzzling.

Add to this fact that some IT departments don't get around to upgrading computers like clockwork every two years and you can see room for productivity improvements in engineering departments across the industry.

Unless someone can point out a tragic flaw in my math, I'd go so far as saying that not only are the tangible benefits obvious, the intangibles (employee satisfaction, retention and goodwill) tip the scale for ensuring your engineers have the fastest hardware you can buy almost as fast as you can buy it for them.

For the record, here's the premise behind my math: If for the better part of 2,000 hours a year you end up using a computer, even a modest improvement of 10% in performance gains for only 10% of your computer using time (conservatively estimated at 50% of your day) for someone making in the ballpark of $100K/year is money well spent.

Let's break that down:

• First, the fully-loaded cost of an employee is generally twice their salary (benefits, taxes, office space, desk, utilities etc.)
• Second, there are generally 2000 workable hours in a year.
• Third, conservatively assume that 50% of those hours are spent on a computer (for most of us it's higher than that).
• Fourth, conservatively assume that 10% of those hours are time spent waiting on your computer.
• Fifth, assume that a faster computer would allow you to complete those tasks 110% as fast.
• Sixth (and most likely to vary in your particular situation) assume that you have a 100% margin, or 2x billable rate... In other words, the value of the time spent per hour is twice that of your cost (otherwise, if it's 100% or less, over the long term, you're going to go out of business).

Doing the math, we find that your cost basis is $100/hr. Your value basis is $200/hr. Meanwhile, we guesstimate that you spend 1000 hours on your computer, with 100 of those hours, cumulatively, over the course of a year, presenting an opportunity to make use of a faster CPU or IO that a new computer should bring. Conservatively, I argue that the speed benefit is approximately 10%, which means that 100 hours worth of work could have been done in 90 hours, freeing up 10 hours at $200/hr, or resulting in a value benefit of $2000/year.

Now, some will take issue with my assumptions. Feel free to substitute your own numbers and calculate your own ROI. I think you'll find that the next time your IT department wants to offer a midrange computer to you or your team, you can pull out your numbers and show them that saving a few hundred dollars on a sub-optimal configuration is only going to save you money for a small fraction of the usable life of the computer.

But, if you're anything like me, objectively justifying the purchase of new hardware will pale in comparison to the satisfaction you'll get from the wide grin your deserving employees give you when you hand them their shiny new hardware.