Budgets forcing companies into longer hardware life cycles

Organisations would rather upgrade current systems with new hardware, than buy completely new systems.

Smaller and medium-sized businesses would rather wait a couple years longer before upgrading their systems, compared to large enterprises, a new survey by memory and storage company Crucial has shown. Out of 350 IT decision makers in the UK, US, Germany and France, more than half (52 per cent) said their company has a hardware refresh cycle of about three to four years. 

Large organisations replace systems every two year or so (23 per cent), while small organisations wait four years, or more (22 per cent). The reason behind upgrades is always the same – their current systems are no longer good enough. Sometimes, businesses would opt to reimage and redeploy problematic storage drives (28 per cent), and sometimes, they’d just buy new computers to replace the old and the slow ones (19 per cent). 

The majority, however, would simply upgrade their current systems with new components (50 per cent).  “Seventy-one per cent of organisations replace their computer systems every 1-4 years, which is a fairly quick lifecycle for computers that can last longer than that,” commented Jonathan Weech, Crucial SSD Product Line Manager.  

“Tight IT budgets can lead to underperforming or old systems, which, in turn, leads to frustrated employees who use them. Extending a system’s lifecycle without losing performance and increasing efficiency is an important job to keep a business productive, which is why IT managers must weigh up buying new versus upgrading.” 

The main reasons why businesses decide to go for either of the solutions are cost effectiveness, system optimisation and added value.     

Image Credit: Adrian / Flickr