William Donzelli wrote: Keep in mind that there are costs beyond that dollar. Yes, the costs of the parts is obvious, and the techs time is also pretty obvious, but there is more. WAY more. Doing more component level repair means more techs on staff. More salaries. With more salaries comes more health care costs, more little benefits, more equipment, more floorspace, which mean a bigger building - and then there are the extra personnel people needed to handle the techs - and their salaries, health care costs, little benefits, equipment, floorspace - which means you need an even bigger building, with more maintenance staff, and their salaries, health care costs, little benefits, equipment, floorspace - which now with a bigger building comes more property taxes, maintenance costs, material handling equipment and the servicing they always need, and then the new shelves to put the part, and the costs to erect them, which may mean some temps or even more maintenance personnel... OK, I could go on ALL NIGHT. Yes, the costs incurred for repairing that little dollar part may have only tiny fractional effects on all of the above mentioned stuff, but as things start to multiply, you find that there is a lot of money being dumped into a department that does not actually make any money. -- Will ------------------------------------ Finally, a little reality comes into this discussion. Everything William describes is normal for this industry. You will find it labeled different ways, but it is real actual costs to support a maintenance organization. (The last management textbook I saw called it MLB - materials, labour, burden.) In Silicon Valley, MLB runs from 100% to 250% of the technician's salary. In Asia, we can usually get it down to 80%, and the salary is lower. I think everyone who looks at this issue forgets that technicians are human. They have needs. They like to be paid; they need tools and space; they only work so long. To date, nobody has found a way to automate their skills. So this overhead is a real cost to an organization. And to William's final and most critical point - repair sections are not a profit and loss center. They represent only loss - they do not generate income. So if you set up a business making widgets and they can break and need repair, you have to make a choice. Do you just replace them or do you fix them? A repair department is a constant drain of money and resources. Replacement-only can take advantage of the volume/cost curve. It is the cheapest alternative. It may look like you are wasting money, spending hundreds to replace 1-2 dollar components. But looking at the overall costs to a business, it is extremely unlikely to economically viable to repair parts. You have to look at the real cost to your business, and not the cost of failing element. And for all of you who think this is a deplorable recent trend, you are wrong. These same factors existed from the very beginning of the computer industry. The cost of the maintenance on the very first systems was already one of the biggest expenses faced by the companies. It was a major factor in the demise of many of the early companies. They found their MLB exceeding their profit; and they couldn't do much to change it, since it doesn't create income. Even our favorite company here, DEC found that the maintenance and support was by far the biggest department in the company. Some third party companies like Bell Atlantic saw it as an opportunity. But in the end, they all faced the same factors - huge MLB, low income. So coming back full circle we have the hobbyists on this list who repair for the love of it. They bitch about the lack of documentation or parts. But they don't accept that the generation of documents, parts, reparability has a very high cost associated with it. And there is no income associated with creating those items. With all our high level skills, none of us got rich. It is not a marketable skill in a world focused on profit. Billy