> C-suites view support (IT in my case) as a cost-center, without seeming to understand that our infrastructure is what all revenue travels over.
I think that's well understood as cost-centers go. What's also understood is that improving that infrastructure beyond a certain point doesn't change how much revenue travels over it.
What's not understood is 100MB switches are OLLLLDDDDDDDD and outdated, and in some cases, the reason IT can't get your radiology image to transfer between DICOM servers in a reasonable amount of time.
It works, so it doesn't need to be changed is how most infrastructure deteriorates. Ask me how I know this. :)
That's not in conflict with what I'm saying. Costs centers require a certain amount of investment to ensure the business runs efficiently. If you under fund it, the results are often catastrophic. However, if you over fund it (as in, put in more money than is needed to keep things working properly), there's generally no additional positive impact on the bottom line. So, from the business side, your main goal tends to be to find ways to keep cost centers running efficiently with less money... without inviting disaster.
Old, under-performing and flakey switches do have a negative and potentially disastrous impact on the business, but if you replace the network with "gold-plated" high-performance 100GbE switches, you're not likely to see much more upside than if you just had properly sized and maintained switches.
I think that's well understood as cost-centers go. What's also understood is that improving that infrastructure beyond a certain point doesn't change how much revenue travels over it.