February 2022

The Total Economic Impact™ Of Microsoft Surface For Higher Education

Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Surface for Higher Education

Microsoft Surface devices are reliable, user-friendly, and secure, and they empower efficiencies inside and outside of classrooms. The Surface device family provides much needed flexibility during times of increased hybrid learning and it empowers IT departments to work more efficiently while enabling faculty members to drive deeper connections with their students.

Deciding which devices to support and offer to staff members is a critical choice that every higher-education institution must make. This choice influences not only the success of faculty members but also the success of students. And as the education landscape has transformed due to the need for hybrid learning, making this decision has become even more important. Institutions must provide their staff members with devices that are reliable, secure, and easy to use in any environment.

Microsoft commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) higher-education institutions may realize by deploying Surface devices.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact Surface devices have on their organizations.

To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed four decision-makers and surveyed 212 decision-makers with experience using the Surface device family. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewed and surveyed decision-makers and combined the results into a single composite organization.

Prior to using Surface, interviewees’ organizations relied on multiple device vendors, which created inconsistent user experiences. The devices frequently needed repairs and did not provide the level of security IT teams desired.

After investing in the Surface device family, interviewees’ organizations were able to retire their legacy devices, reduce spending for IT support, and provide more efficient user experiences for all device users.

Consulting Team:
  • Connor Maguire, Benjamin Corey

Key Findings

  • icon
    ROI
    177%
  • icon
    BENEFITS PV
    $5.76M
  • icon
    NPV
    $3.68M
  • icon
    PAYBACK
    12 months

Key Findings

Quantified benefits. Risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits include:

  • Reduced technical support costs by $738,600.

    Interviewees said Microsoft’s extensive warranty policy was a large driver for adopting Surface devices. They said warranties reduce the overall repair costs for a given device by 25% and that they allowed their organizations to easily replace devices. This eliminated the time needed to repair devices in-house.

  • Retired redundant devices resulting in $3 million in savings.

    Interviewees said that prior to investing in Surface devices, it was common for faculty members to use multiple devices from various manufacturers to complete their duties. They also said the need for multiple devices bloated technology budgets and created security concerns. But interviewees said Surface devices are ideal for teaching and conducting research, which eliminated the need to use multiple devices.

  • Created more efficient device-update and deployment workflows, saving $681,300.

    Microsoft Surface devices come with increased integration of Microsoft’s broader product suite. Interviewees said having this integration reduced the downtime their organizations experienced during device setup and installation of operating system updates. By using Microsoft Intune, a cloud-based service for mobile device management and mobile application management, interviewees’ organizations were able to consolidate steps during the update process. This reduced downtime for users and manual effort for IT administrators.

  • Improved faculty experiences generating $1.1 million in time savings.

    Interviewees said Surface improved reliability and that increased interconnectivity with the Microsoft ecosystem reduced the downtime faculty members experience while teaching and conducting research. Interviewees also said Surface devices helped improve employee experiences for faculty and learning experiences for students.

  • Improved productivity for administrators leading to $247,700 in time savings.

    Interviewees said administrators using Surface saw similar time savings as faculty members did. They said Surface improved uptime and reliability and saved each administrator an estimated 13 hours per year.

“We’ve got a single device that can provide [everything] for staff, and we were able to tweak the Surface devices to meet our requirements. Most of the lecturers here have [used] Surface Pros because they can accomplish their desk work with the device, and they can take it to the front of the house when they are teaching students.”

Executive head of IT

Unquantified benefits. Benefits that are not quantified for this study include:

  • Improved hybrid-learning opportunities for teachers and students.

    Interviewees said Surface devices offer myriad interactive capabilities through their integrations with Microsoft’s software suite and accessories that make hybrid learning more dynamic. They also said having capabilities like live interaction and streaming through Microsoft Teams drove engagement for students in hybrid settings.

  • Increased confidence in the security of devices.

    Microsoft integrates many fundamental security features into Surface devices by default. They said native data encryption and the ability to use biometric authentication helps IT administrators ensure devices are secure.

Costs. Risk-adjusted PV costs include:

  • Device and accessory costs.

    The composite organization initially rolls out 1,000 Surface devices to faculty members and nonfaculty administrators. It rolls out an additional 200 devices in Year 1 and another 300 devices in Year 2. Forrester estimates that accessories like Surface Pens, detachable keyboards, and mice are included in the composite’s rollout and account for 10% of the cost of the devices. Each Surface device comes with a four-year warranty.

  • Surface setup and deployment costs.

    During an initial pilot program, the composite requires four FTEs to set up devices during a four-month span. Although Microsoft Autopilot and Intune automate much of the composite’s software installation, the organization dedicates two FTEs working two months on asset tags and device ruggedization during its initial rollout and for other device onboarding tasks in years 1 and 2.

  • Device management costs.

    Interviewees said that although using Surface simplified their organizations’ device management requirements, IT administrators still spent time physically managing devices. The composite dedicated 25% of the time of four FTEs to managing devices, and the organization invests an additional $2 per device in Intune to expedite device deployments and software updates.

The financial analysis which is based on the decision-maker interviews and survey found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $5.8 million over three years versus costs of $2.1 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $3.7 million and an ROI of 177%.

Benefits (Three-Year)


TEI Framework And Methodology

From the information provided in the interviews and survey, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for higher-education institutions considering an investment in Microsoft Surface.

The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Microsoft Surface can have on an organization.

  • icon
    DUE DILIGENCE

    Interviewed Microsoft stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to the Surface for Higher Education.

  • icon
    DECISION-MAKER INTERVIEWS AND SURVEY

    Interviewed four decision-makers and surveyed 212 decision-makers at organizations using Surface to obtain data with respect to costs, benefits, and risks.

  • icon
    COMPOSITE ORGANIZATION

    Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewed and surveyed decision-makers.

  • icon
    FINANCIAL MODEL FRAMEWORK

    Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews and survey using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the decision-makers.

  • icon
    CASE STUDY

    Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.

DISCLOSURES

Readers should be aware of the following:

This study is commissioned by Microsoft and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.

Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in the Surface.

Microsoft reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.

Microsoft provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.

Forrester fielded the double-blind survey using a third-party survey partner.

Key Challenges

The interviewees noted how with legacy device OEMs their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:

  • Having inconsistent experiences across different devices.

    Interviewees said faculty and staff members often relied on devices from multiple manufacturers to accomplish their daily tasks and that this caused users to navigate the nuances of each device and their individual operating systems. Interviewees said device users often grew frustrated as they attempted to transition work from one device to another because they would need to reformat files or reconfigure certain aspects of their work to perform correctly on each device. This created inefficiencies in workloads and caused users to become more dependent on one device, which limited their ability to adapt to changing working conditions or wasting the investments made in additional devices.

  • Wanting to improve security across device environments.

    In addition to the challenges of navigating the operating systems of multiple devices, interviewees’ organizations also needed to ensure that multiple security systems were being properly installed and updated on different devices. This left them vulnerable to potential security threats because it was harder to track and catalog security software updates on disparate devices. Interviewees said their organizations needed to use a device with a proven security track record to ensure secure device environments for users.

  • Needing to improve device performance and reduce hardware costs.

    Interviewees said that as their organizations’ devices aged, the companies often incurred increased costs to maintain them. One interviewee said: “Over the last several years, we have been having battery-swelling issues and a lot of the users didn’t even know that their batteries were swelling. So they would come in for something else [and] their track pack wouldn’t work. They had a safety hazard that they were carrying around or throwing in their car and leaving in the sun, and they didn’t even know they had that safety risk there. We experienced lots of sound-driver issues, and once our legacy provider changed their docking station, we needed to invest in new infrastructure to support that.”

These interviewees turned to Microsoft Surface devices in order to address the challenges that their legacy device manufacturers created.

Composite Organization

Based on the interviews and survey, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the survey respondents and four decision-makers that Forrester interviewed and is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:

  • Description of composite.

    The composite organization is a US-based higher-education institution with more than 20,000 students and 5,000 employees. Prior to investing in Surface devices, the organization relied on multiple vendors to equip their faculty and nonfaculty staff with devices. This typically required investment in multiple devices because it was not uncommon for faculty members to use a combination of a laptop, tablet, and desktop computer. The composite organization has Surface users across all departments and roles.

  • Deployment characteristics.

    The composite organization chooses to deploy devices in a “big bang” method. It makes 1,000 Surface devices available to faculty and nonfaculty upon initial deployment, and this number grows to 1,500 devices by Year 3. These employees use Surface Pro and Surface laptops. Additionally, the organization purchases several Surface Hubs to enhance in-classroom learning. After deployment, 500 faculty members and 200 nonfaculty members use Surface devices, and these numbers grow to 1,000 and 500, respectively, by Year 3.

Key assumptions
  • 1,500 Surface devices deployed by Year 3
  • 1,000 faculty members use Surface devices
  • 500 non-faculty users by Year 3

Total Benefits

Ref. Benefit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Atr Reduced technical support costs $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 $891,000 $738,595
Btr Retired legacy devices $810,000 $1,215,000 $1,620,000 $3,645,000 $2,957,626
Ctr Device setup and update efficiencies $225,000 $270,000 $337,500 $832,500 $681,255
Dtr Improved faculty productivity $310,050 $465,075 $620,100 $1,395,225 $1,132,113
Etr Improved nonfaculty productivity $58,500 $102,375 $146,250 $307,125 $247,669
Total benefits (risk-adjusted) $1,700,550 $2,349,450 $3,020,850 $7,070,850 $5,757,258

Reduced Technical Support Costs

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewed decision-makers said the growing cost of device support was a major driver in their organizations’ Microsoft Surface investments. They said that although all manufacturers offered warranties for their legacy devices, the warranties did not cover many of the technical issues that users faced. This required IT help desks to perform time-intensive and often costly repairs. If the devices were out-of-warranty, the cost increased significantly.

    An assistant director of IT for one institution said repairing legacy devices has become increasingly expensive. They said: “Now more than ever, our machines are getting older, and they’re just failing more and more. You’ll see parts broken on these devices because they are plastic, and it’s become more frequent for us to have to repair these aging devices ourselves.” And these repairs proved costly because they required the organization to invest in additional parts and employee time as they attempted to get old devices back working. They said: “Our old devices — even if they’re only three years old — are costing us a lot of time. I have one ticket in our repair queue that had nothing but weird, little problems. So, we are spending hundreds of dollars in support, just trying to fix these weird, little problems. We haven’t had any of those with our Surface line.”

    Interviewees said Microsoft provided their organizations with extensive warranties and reliable devices that eliminate many of the costs associated with device repair and support. One interviewee said: “Microsoft has maintained a consistent approach in relation to device reliability. We’ve had very few devices that have required warranty fixes in relation to fail components or failures.”

    Several interviewees also said that using Microsoft’s warranty allowed them to replace defective devices with new machines and that improvements offered by the warranty eliminated the need to buy additional components. It also enabled IT help-desk workers to redirect their efforts to other business priorities.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • In its legacy state, the composite organization repaired 25 devices monthly. The average cost to repair these devices was $500. This cost represents the price paid to replace broken components, replace batteries, or hire third-party services to assist in repairs.
    • Microsoft’s device warranty allows the composite organization to avoid all the costs associated with purchasing additional parts for devices.
    • Prior to investing in Microsoft Surface devices, the composite’s IT department spent a collective 12 hours each month repairing failed devices. These employees have an average hourly rate of $50.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this benefit being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The organization’s fully burdened salary costs.
    • The condition of the organization’s legacy device warranties.
    • The cost of replacement parts, which vary based on device type and manufacturer.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $738,600.

“With Surface devices, we’ve maintained a low consistent approach in relation to the actual reliability. We’ve had very few devices that have required kind of warranty fixes in relation to fail components or failures.”

Executive head of IT

Reduced Technical Support Costs

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A1 Devices repaired monthly Assumption 25 25 25
A2 Cost to repair legacy devices Interviews $500 $500 $500
A3 Annual cost to repair legacy devices A1*A2*12 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
A4 Average time spent repairing legacy devices (hours) Interviews 12 12 12
A5 Hourly cost of employees performing and managing device repair Assumption $50 $50 $50
A6 Employee time spent performing and managing device repairs A4*A5*A1*12 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000
At Reduced technical support costs A3+A6 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Atr Reduced technical support costs (risk-adjusted) $297,000 $297,000 $297,000
Three-year total: $891,000 Three-year present value: $738,595

Retired Legacy Devices

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees said the capabilities of Surface devices enabled their institutions to reduce the number of devices that faculty members needed to complete their duties. Prior to investing in Surface devices, it was not uncommon for faculty members to have as many as three university-issued devices (e.g., laptop, tablet, desktop computer). This exacerbated issues with device management, growing technology budgets, and security concerns.

    Interviewees said the portability of the Surface products and the touchscreen capabilities of devices like Surface Pro enabled faculty members to use one device to do significantly more things. Surface devices often replaced a tablet and a laptop because they provided users with a portable, high-performance device with a touchscreen which made it easy to use in traditional lecture settings. As these institutions transitioned to hybrid-learning environments, Surface devices became increasingly important, and many Surface users transitioned away from using desktop devices because the need to have all their files accessible from anywhere become a priority.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • The composite organization initially deploys Surface devices to 500 faculty members. As its relationship with Microsoft grows, the number of faculty users expands to 750 in Year 2 and to 1,000 in Year 3.
    • Using Surface allows the composite organization’s faculty members to retire an average of two devices each. The average cost of one of these devices is $1,200.
    • The composite organization recaptures 75% of the savings of this benefit.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this benefit being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The cost of the devices the organization retires.
    • The number of devices the organization retires.
    • The speed with which the organization retires devices.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $3 million.

Retired Legacy Devices

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
B1 Number of faculty members Assumption 500 750 1,000
B2 Number of devices retired per faculty member (annually) Interviews 2 2 2
B3 Average cost per device retired Interviews $1,200 $1,200 $1,200
B4 Device costs recaptured Interviews 75% 75% 75%
Bt Retired legacy devices B1*B2*B3*B4 $900,000 $1,350,000 $1,800,000
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Btr Retired legacy devices (risk-adjusted) $810,000 $1,215,000 $1,620,000
Three-year total: $3,645,000 Three-year present value: $2,957,626

Device Setup And Update Efficiencies

  • Evidence and data.

      Interviewees said an additional benefit of using Microsoft Surface devices was the ease of configuring new devices and performing software updates.

      They said configuring their organizations’ Surface devices was quick and efficient and that integration between the devices and the Microsoft product suite reduced the downtime experienced during device setup. And this allowed for more seamless device deployments.

      An associate director of IT for one interviewed university said: “We use the Microsoft tools to deploy images, MDT (Microsoft Deployment Toolkit), SCCM (system center configuration manager), and things of that nature. So, [regarding the hardware platform], it obviously has a tight integration with all the Microsoft tools. Driver packs, firmware updates, and things like that are very seamless to install using [Microsoft’s] toolset as opposed to having to go to other manufacturers, download specific driver packs, and go through a series of different processes just to get the machine out the door.”

      Interviewees said this benefit was particularly helpful in hybrid-working environments because IT staff often had to deploy new devices to remote users. With the help of Intune, IT departments could reliably set up new users on devices regardless of where they were. Interviewees said this was a major time saver and a significant benefit of using Surface devices.

      In addition, interviewees also said that performing operating-system updates on Microsoft devices was also easier. One interviewee said: “Because we use Intune, our updates are very simple. With the Surface product line, [we’re] going to receive firmware updates through the Intune management platform. With our legacy devices, [we’re] not. With those machines, [we] needed to run a separate tool to do the firmware updates, so it’s kind of an upside of the agreement of Intune. In terms of driver updates and things like that, our legacy devices are a bit more finicky about the drivers used, which added increased complexity to our update processes.”

      Interviewees said that using Intune allowed their organizations to consolidate the steps needed to update their devices, which created faster processes and reduced both downtime for users and manual effort for IT departments.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • The composite organization initially deploys 1,000 Surface devices across its faculty and non-faculty staff. This deployment increases to 1,200 users in Year 2 and to 1,500 users in Year 3.
    • With its legacy devices, IT teams would spend a collective four hours preparing devices for user deployment. Using of Intune IT allows teams to configure devices 75% faster.
    • With its legacy devices, IT teams would spend a collective two hours performing operating systems and hardware updates. They performed these updates every six months.
    • Pairing Surface devices with Intune enables the composite’s users to reduce the time needed to upgrade devices by 50%
    • The average hourly rate for the composite’s employees who are responsible for these tasks is $50.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this benefit being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The number of devices the organization deploys.
    • The steps required to complete legacy update and device-deployment workflows.
    • The extent to which the organization uses Microsoft Intune.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $681,300.

icon
Surface devices deploy significantly faster than legacy manufacturers.
75% faster

Device Setup And Update Efficiencies

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
C1 Number of surface devices Assumption 1,000 1,200 1,500
C2 IT effort to deploy legacy devices (hours) Interviews 4 4 4
C3 Fully burdened IT administrator salary Assumption $50 $50 $50
C4 Cost to deploy legacy devices C1*C2*C3 $200,000 $240,000 $300,000
C5 Reduction in time spent deploying surface devices Interviews 75% 75% 75%
C6 IT effort to update legacy devices (hours) Interviews 2 2 2
C7 Device upgrades annually Interviews 2 2 2
C8 Cost to upgrade legacy devices C1*C6*C7*C3 $200,000 $240,000 $300,000
C9 Reduction in time spent upgrading & surface devices Assumption 50% 50% 50%
Ct Device setup and update efficiencies (C4*C5)+(C8*C8) $250,000 $300,000 $375,000
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Ctr Device setup and update efficiencies (risk-adjusted) $225,000 $270,000 $337,500
Three-year total: $832,500 Three-year present value: $681,255

Improved Faculty Productivity

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees said faculty members benefit from Surface devices in terms of time savings, greater job satisfaction, and an improved ability to teach in hybrid-learning environments.

    One interviewee said: “One of the biggest areas we’ve seen benefits in is our hybrid-learning model. The professors always thought: ‘This is hard. I don’t like this. I want to be in the classroom.’ [But] when we deployed our Surface devices, they realized [they] can draw on them, use the camera for online learning, and mark up Surface laptops in real time. So, they’re the only ones that could interact with their content at that point. Anyone who had just used them as desktop or a laptop couldn’t do that. So, it did help those professors who were using the Surface Pros; they had more interaction within their hybrid classrooms. And I think that did help them. They were able to teach just as they were doing in the classroom [by] marking their slides up and creating a more enjoyable interactive environment.”

    Interviewees said increased interaction with content improves teaching experience for staff and students alike and that the reliability of Surface devices enhanced this. Prior to using the Surface product line, it was not uncommon for faculty members to encounter issues with finding, sharing, or presenting content. This caused costly delays both inside and outside of learning environments. Interviewees’ organizations found that their Surface devices did not experience these issues as often, which led to less downtime for faculty users.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • The composite organization deploys Surface devices to 500 faculty members in Year 1. As the institution matures 750 faculty members use Surface devices in Year 2 and 1,000 in Year 3.
    • The Surface devices these faculty members use reduced the downtime the experience, and allow them to quickly and easily access, share, and present information saving each user 30 minutes per week.
    • The average hourly salary for faculty members is $53.
    • Forrester assumes that only 50% of the time savings calculated in this benefit will be recaptured for productive use by the composite organization.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this benefit being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The organization’s annual faculty salaries.
    • The extent to which the organization uses Surface devices to enhance hybrid-learning models.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $1.1 million.

icon
26 hours of annual time savings per faculty user

Improved Faculty Productivity

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
D1 Total number of faculty Assumption 500 750 1,000
D2 Annual time savings for faculty Surface users (weekly) Interviews 26 26 26
D3 Average hourly salary for faculty members Assumption $53 $53 $53
D4 Productivity recapture Assumption 50% 50% 50%
Dt Improved faculty productivity D1*D2*D3*D4 $344,500 $516,750 $689,000
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Dtr Improved faculty productivity (risk-adjusted) $310,050 $465,075 $620,100
Three-year total: $1,395,225 Three-year present value: $1,132,113

Improved Nonfaculty Productivity

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees said nonfaculty members saved time because of better device performance and uptime.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    This section explains how the modeling is done.

    • Initially, 200 nonfaculty members use Surface devices in Year 1. This number grows to 350 users in Year 2 and to 500 in Year 3.
    • Nonfaculty members using these devices save 15 minutes per week, which leads to an average of 13 hours of time savings each year.
    • The composite recaptures only 50% of the time savings for productive use.
    • The hourly rate for employees who experience these benefits is $50.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this benefit being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The organization’s fully burdened cost.
    • The number of staff members given Surface devices.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $247,700.

Improved Nonfaculty Productivity

Ref. Metric Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
E1 Total number of non faculty Surface users Assumption 200 350 500
E2 Annual time savings for non faculty Surface users (weekly) Interviews 13 13 13
E3 Average hourly salary for non facility members Assumption $50 $50 $50
E4 Productivity recapture Assumption 50% 50% 50%
Et Improved nonfaculty productivity E1*E2*E3*E4 $65,000 $113,750 $162,500
Risk adjustment ↓10%
Etr Improved nonfaculty productivity (risk-adjusted) $58,500 $102,375 $146,250
Three-year total: $307,125 Three-year present value: $247,669

Unquantified Benefits

Additional benefits that customers experienced but were not able to quantify include:

  • Improved hybrid-learning opportunities for teachers and students.

    Interviewees said the interactive capabilities of Surface devices allowed for improved learning opportunities for students in hybrid-learning models. Interviewees are concerned that students are fatigued by the monotony of online classes. This disengages students and frustrates teachers who were looking for creative ways to connect their content with their students.

    After deploying Surface devices to teaching staff members, the interviewees’ organizations were able to interact with their content live and project it to students via Microsoft Teams. This was an important way to enhance hybrid learning. Interviewees said by using the many accessories Microsoft provides, teachers can annotate content in real time, which leads to more interactive online classes generating more student engagement.

  • Increased confidence in the security of devices.

    As previously mentioned, interviewees said security was a strategic driver for investing in Microsoft Surface products and that the Surface line is equipped with many inherent features that promote secure devices. They said integrated encryption secures data to biometrics controls, which restricts unauthorized access. They also said Surface devices provided security to their device environments.

    One interviewee said: “With Surface, we now have biometrics included in our security process ... whether it’s touch, fingerprint on the Surface Pros, or camera scanning for the Surface laptops or Surface Pros. Whereas before, we didn’t [have biometrics included]. This goes a long way to helping put our minds at ease that these devices are secure.”

Flexibility

The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Surface devices for higher education and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:

  • Adding more Surface Hub and Studio devices to enhance in person learning.
  • Providing more staff members with Surface devices.
  • Providing Surface devices to students in specific departments to enhance their learning experiences and potentially drive improved academic results.

Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Appendix A).

Total Costs

Ref. Cost Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Ftr Surface device costs $981,750 $196,350 $294,525 $0 $1,472,625 $1,403,659
Gtr Surface device setup and deployment $262,959 $21,160 $29,440 $0 $313,559 $306,526
Htr Device management $0 $141,900 $147,180 $155,100 $444,180 $367,165
Total costs (risk-adjusted) $1,244,709 $359,410 $471,145 $155,100 $2,230,364 $2,077,350

Surface Device Costs

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees and survey respondents said their organizations provided devices to faculty and nonfaculty staff members. In addition to deploying Surface Pro and Surface laptops, several organizations also chose to deploy Surface Hubs in classrooms.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • The composite organization invests in 1,000 devices in Year 1. It adds 200 additional devices in Year 2, and 300 devices in Year 3.
    • Each Surface device comes with a four-year warranty.
    • The composite organization invests in several Surface accessories for users to pair with their Surface devices. Typically, these accessories are Surface Pens, detachable keyboards, or wireless mice. The costs of these accessories represents 10% of the composite’s total Surface investment.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this cost being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The number of higher-specification devices the organization deploys.
    • More Surface Hub and other Surface devices being deployed.
    • The extent to which organization use Surface accessories.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.4 million.

Surface Device Costs

Ref. Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
F1 Number of faculty and non faculty Surface devices Assumption 1,000 200 300
F2 Cost per staff Surface device with four year warranty Assumption $850 $850 $850
F3 Cost of Surface devices F1*F2 $850,000 $170,000 $255,000
F4 Cost of Surface accessories Assumption $85,000 $17,000 $25,500
Ft Surface device costs F1+F2 $935,000 $187,000 $280,500 $0
Risk adjustment ↑5%
Ftr Surface device costs (risk-adjusted) $981,750 $196,350 $294,525 $0
Three-year total: $1,472,625 Three-year present value: $1,403,659

Surface Device Setup and Deployment

  • Evidence and data.

    Interviewees said setting up and deploying Surface devices was simple and required minimal effort to prepare for use. Some of their organizations used Intune and Autopilot to automate the process, but the devices still needed to have asset tags and ruggedized cases applied.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • The composite conducts a pilot effort that includes creating images and going through the deployment process for a subset of users. This process requires four months and the time of four IT FTEs.
    • To roll out devices to all users, the composite puts in place a third-party deployment contract that lists the cost of each device at $62. The organization still uses Intune and Autopilot for software and image deployment, but the devices still need to have their asset tags and ruggedized cases applied.
    • The composite requires ongoing employee effort to deploy new devices. Initially this requires two FTEs working for two months. But in subsequent years, this effort required decreases as fewer devices are deployed annually.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could result in this cost being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The extent of third-party involvement in the organization’s device deployment.
    • The number of devices the organization adds in subsequent years.
    • The extent of automation the organization uses in device deployment.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $307,000.

Surface Device Setup And Deployment

Ref. Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
G1 Pilot program duration (months) Interviews 4
G2 Number of FTEs involved in setup Assumptions 4
G3 Monthly fully burdened costs Assumption $8,333
G4 Monthly fully burdened costs G1*G2*G3 $133,328
G5 Number of devices Assumption 1,000 200 300
G6 Deployment contract Assumption $62 $62 $62
G7 Deployment internal labor costs Assumption $33,332 $6,000 $7,000
Gt Surface device setup and deployment G1*G2*G3 $228,660 $18,400 $25,600 $0
Risk adjustment ↑15%
Gtr Surface device setup and deployment (risk-adjusted) $262,959 $21,160 $29,440 $0
Three-year total: $313,559 Three-year present value: $306,526

Device Management

  • Evidence and data.

    This cost represents the level of effort required to manage the day to day needs of Surface devices. While there are savings on support cost compared to other device manufacturers, the interviewees indicated that there was some effort expended to manage their Surface device deployments.

    In addition to the cost of physical labor to maintain these devices many customers invested in Microsoft Intune to help manage and expedite device deployment and upgrades.

  • Modeling and assumptions.

    Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:

    • Four FTEs spend approximately 25% of their time managing the day to day needs of Microsoft Surface devices and the requirements of Surface users.
    • The composite organization invests in Microsoft Intune services which have a monthly cost of $2 per device.
  • Risks.

    Factors that could lead to this cost being different than what’s modeled for the composite organization include:

    • The amount of time the organization’s employees dedicate to Surface devices, which will vary depending on institutional guidelines.
    • The extent to which the organization’s IT team uses Microsoft Intune.
    • The organization’s fully loaded IT costs.
  • Results.

    To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV of $367,000.

Device Management

Ref. Metric Source Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
H1 Number of FTEs dedicated to device management Assumption 4 4 4
H2 Percent of time spent managing Microsoft devices Interviews 25% 25% 25%
H3 Average annual salary for IT employees Assumption $105,000 $105,000 $105,000
H4 Cost of device management H1*H2*H3 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000
H5 Intune costs Assumption $24,000 $28,800 $36,000
Ht Device management H4+H5 $0 $129,000 $133,800 $141,000
Risk adjustment ↑10%
Htr Device management (risk-adjusted) $0 $141,900 $147,180 $155,100
Three-year total: $444,180 Three-year present value: $367,165

CONSOLIDATED THREE-YEAR RISK-ADJUSTED METRICS
  • These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.

Cash Flow Chart (Risk-Adjusted)

Cash Flow Table (Risk-Adjusted Estimates)

Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Present Value
Total costs ($1,244,709) ($359,410) ($471,145) ($155,100) ($2,230,364) ($2,077,350)
Total benefits $0 $1,700,550 $2,349,450 $3,020,850 $7,070,850 $5,757,258
Net benefits ($1,244,709) $1,341,140 $1,878,305 $2,865,750 $4,840,486 $3,679,908
ROI 117%
Payback period (months) 12.0

The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.

NEXT SECTION: Appendix

Appendix A: Total Economic Impact

Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.

Total Economic Impact Approach

  • icon

    Benefits represent the value delivered to the business by the product. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and the measure of costs, allowing for a full examination of the effect of the technology on the entire organization.

  • icon

    Costs consider all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the product. The cost category within TEI captures incremental costs over the existing environment for ongoing costs associated with the solution.

  • icon

    Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. Having the ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.

  • icon

    Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”

  • icon
    PRESENT VALUE (PV)

    The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.

  • icon
    NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

    The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made, unless other projects have higher NPVs.

  • icon
    RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)

    A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.

  • icon
    DISCOUNT RATE

    The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.

  • icon
    PAYBACK PERIOD

    The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.

The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.


Appendix B: Interview And Survey Demographics

Interviewed Decision-Makers

Interviewee Region Number of surface devices Number of employees
Head of service delivery Canada 800 5,500
Assistant director of IT US 250 250
Associate director of IT US 1,400 1,400
Executive head of IT UK 1,200 12,000

Survey Demographics

“In which country are you located?”

“Using your best estimate, what is your company’s annual revenue (USD)?”

“Which of the following best describes your current role?”

212 decision-makers of educational technology initiatives and users of the Microsoft 365 application suite and Surface devices within schools.
Note: Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
Source: “Microsoft Surface Higher Learning,” A commissioned study conducted by Forrester Consulting on behalf of Microsoft, December 2021.

Appendix C: Endnotes

1Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists vendors in communicating the value proposition of their products and services to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of IT initiatives to both senior management and other key business stakeholders.