“Conflicting opinions” usually falls between what the “tech” wants are and what the “finance” wants are. Too often, tech upgrade spend is seen only as a drag to the bottom-line. While financially it does add to depreciation expense, what is not quantifiable on a P&L is the marginal productivity gained by faster/better capex on tech. If you’re a 10-person office, and the average salary is $45k/year, that’s $450k in payroll burn per year. 2% of that is $9k. Assuming a server lasts 5 years, you’re talking about a possible $45k productivity increase with a faster server. Would you spend $10k to make $45k? How about $20k? When evaluating NET effect, the business answer is obvious. Evaluating ONLY the expense doesn’t give the full picture.

Stefan's comments reminds me of a story. Several years ago I was directly supporting the organizational development needs for a large and rapidly growing group at KLA (KLA-Tencor). One time, the GM directly challenged the young (and very bright) finance person. Omitting the expletives he said, "All you do is put up stop signs! Why don't you start adding value and tell me what I can do to make this product line successful!" From that moment on, this young man's career sky-rocketed. He is now an extremely successful finance executive. My recommendation is to ensure your finance people are clear on how they add value to your organization and enable them to do so.

When faced with conflicting opinions on system upgrades, start by aligning decisions with the organization's core business goals. Evaluate each upgrade based on its potential impact on performance, security, and user experience, using data to prioritize those with the most measurable benefits. Balance the needs of stakeholders, considering both technical requirements and user pain points. Factor in available resources—time, budget, and personnel—while assessing risks, such as security vulnerabilities or system inefficiencies. Clear communication and transparency ensure consensus on the priorities.