Hypothetical scenario: a utility that does not save over five years
A fictional example where support, training and coexistence exceed license reductions.
Editorial review: 2026-09-23
Fictional exercise. This is not a GeoSAT client, implementation, testimonial or observed outcome. “Example North Networks” is invented. Every USD amount is an educational assumption, with no implied vendor price, local wage benchmark or conversion to COP.
This case deliberately produces a negative five-year result. It shows why lower licensing expense alone cannot justify moving a field workflow from an existing GIS platform to QGIS, QField and PostGIS.
Assumed operational need
Four hypothetical crews capture offline inspections, attach photographs and reconcile changes with a central database. A specialized ArcGIS network process remains in place. The evaluated alternative changes portable inspection forms and data capture, while retaining that specialist capability.
A field workflow includes more than a mobile form: preparation, downloading the assigned area, locating the correct asset, collecting observations, preserving media, resolving conflicting edits and updating the central record. A photograph displayed on a phone is not proof that its file and relationship survived synchronization.
| Step | Proposed design question | Failure to include in the pilot |
|---|---|---|
| Assignment | Which crew owns an asset or task? | Two crews work on the same item |
| Offline package | What data, forms and basemap are available? | Connection disappears before download finishes |
| Collection | How are identifiers and allowed values enforced? | Duplicate inspection or invalid condition |
| Attachments | Where are photos stored and referenced? | Partial media upload or missing file |
| Synchronization | What is the retry and conflict behavior? | Same record edited offline on two devices |
| Integration | How does the retained network process consume updates? | Out-of-order or repeated update |
| Recovery | How are server data and attachments restored together? | Database restored without corresponding media |
Use QField's documentation to identify the selected deployment and synchronization behavior. Do not assume every project, direct database connection and cloud synchronization configuration has identical conflict semantics.
Invented comparable annual costs
The scope and tax basis are the same for both options. The figures assume neither inflation nor discounting. Support coverage and internal work must be specified for the comparison to be meaningful.
| Category | Current annual USD | Future annual USD |
|---|---|---|
| Current or retained licenses | 12,000 | 3,000 |
| Infrastructure and storage | 3,000 | 4,000 |
| External support | 4,000 | 8,000 |
| Internal labor allocation | 5,000 | 7,000 |
| Total | 24,000 | 22,000 |
Assumed transition is USD 18,000: integration 10,000, training 4,000 and coexistence 4,000. Provider work is not counted a second time as internal hours. The retained license belongs to the specialist process; it does not disappear because the inspection form changes.
Licensing falls by USD 9,000 annually. Infrastructure, support and internal effort rise by USD 7,000 in total. The complete recurring reduction is therefore only USD 2,000.
Reproducible five-year result
Current total = 5 × 24,000 = 120,000
Alternative total = 18,000 + 5 × 22,000 = 128,000
Net savings = 120,000 − 128,000 = −8,000
Savings percentage = −8,000 / 120,000 × 100 = −6.67%
Simple payback = 12 × 18,000 / 2,000 = 108 months
At the end of year one, cumulative savings are USD -16,000. Each subsequent year adds only USD 2,000, leaving USD -8,000 at year five. Payback at 108 months lies outside the selected 60-month horizon. Reporting “75% lower license spending” would conceal the unfavorable full result.
What would change the decision?
With transition fixed at USD 18,000, the maximum future annual cost for five-year break-even is 24,000 − 18,000/5 = 20,400. The team would need evidence for an additional USD 1,600 annual reduction relative to the assumed 22,000, while delivering the same service.
| Hypothetical future annual | Five-year alternative | Net savings | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20,000 | 118,000 | 2,000 | Slightly positive; little room for overruns |
| 20,400 | 120,000 | 0 | Break-even at five years |
| 22,000 | 128,000 | -8,000 | Base case does not justify a savings claim |
| 25,000 | 143,000 | -23,000 | No payback through recurring cost reduction |
Cutting the transition estimate to USD 10,000 with future annual cost still 22,000 reaches break-even, not a strong return. Removing necessary training to force that number would weaken the operational case. A credible estimate changes because scope or evidence changes, not because a positive result is desired.
Proposed field pilot and measurements
Rehearse a complete workday on two devices using synthetic assets. Disconnect both, edit the same asset, add photographs, retry synchronization after a failure and inspect the central result. Check that deleted or replaced media does not leave broken references. Restore database and attachments together and confirm that the inspection can still be understood.
Measure time preparing packages, capture time, sync failures, conflict resolution, help requests and operator hours. These observations can support a revised support estimate. Functional success alone does not lower costs; reduced hours must actually appear in the estimate and remain plausible during routine operation.
The Open GIS lab supplies synthetic asset data and a field acceptance worksheet, but it does not claim to have executed QField device synchronization. A production decision requires the selected application, devices, connectivity conditions and integration path to be tested.
A defensible fictional outcome
Under the stated assumptions, the organization should retain the current workflow, narrow the migration or justify a separate nonfinancial objective. Better portability or forms may be worthwhile, but this example does not measure or monetize those benefits to turn the result positive.
Compare the fictional municipality and replace both scenarios with your own inputs in the calculator. An honest migration assessment allows a negative result and identifies exactly which functional or cost evidence could change it.