Contents
- Workstation equipment spending statistics: computer and peripheral investment
- Workstation equipment spending statistics: laptop and desktop refresh ages
- Workstation equipment spending statistics: hardware budgets and retirement plans
- workstation equipment spending: Workstation asset tracking and data security findings
- workstation equipment spending: Workstation procurement and standard configurations
- Sources
Workstation equipment spending statistics: computer and peripheral investment
Workstation spending can appear in more than one accounting category. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 Information and Communication Technology Survey separates noncapitalized purchases and operating leases from capitalized purchases. Its figures cover U.S. nonfarm businesses with employees and the broader category of computer and peripheral equipment; they are not limited to employee workstations. The amounts are billions of current dollars for 2013, not present-day budget benchmarks.
| 2013 business expenditure | Computer and peripheral equipment |
|---|---|
| Noncapitalized purchases | $14.8 billion |
| Noncapitalized operating leases and rental payments | $10.5 billion |
| Capitalized purchases | $65.1 billion |
The distinction matters when comparing spending. The $14.8 billion figure is specifically noncapitalized equipment purchases, while the $65.1 billion figure is capitalized purchases. The $10.5 billion entry records lease and rental payments, a different form of obtaining equipment. These are separate reported measures; they should not be combined into a single workstation budget or treated as amounts spent per employee. The survey’s computer-and-peripheral category is broader than workstation hardware alone. Source: Census Bureau, 2013 Information and Communication Technology Survey, Summary Tables B and C
For an organization planning equipment purchases, these historical figures mainly illustrate the importance of preserving accounting treatment and scope. A purchase amount and a lease-payment amount describe different expenditure types, and capitalized and noncapitalized purchases are reported in separate tables. The survey supplies a national business-population view for 2013, not a current estimate and not a guide to the price of an individual workstation. Source: Census Bureau, 2013 Information and Communication Technology Survey
Workstation equipment spending statistics: laptop and desktop refresh ages
Cascade’s benchmarking report gives average laptop and desktop ages at retirement for survey observations in 2020, 2022 and 2024. The series makes the reported refresh timing comparable across the two device types while retaining each year’s measured value.
| Device | 2020 average age at retirement | 2022 average age at retirement | 2024 average age at retirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laptops | 4.1 years | 4.4 years | 4.1 years |
| Desktops | 4.5 years | 4.7 years | 4.6 years |
The laptop average rose from 4.1 years in 2020 to 4.4 years in 2022, then was 4.1 years in 2024. The desktop average was 4.5 years in 2020, 4.7 years in 2022 and 4.6 years in 2024. In each reported year, the desktop average was older than the laptop average. These are survey averages for Cascade respondents, not a census of all organizations or a recommended replacement interval. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “Average Age at Retirement,” p. 5
Retirement age is a useful description of when surveyed organizations say devices leave service, but it does not by itself tell why they retire equipment, how long devices were in storage, or whether an organization replaces every device on a fixed schedule. The three observations are spaced across 2020, 2022 and 2024; they do not provide a value for every intervening year. The averages also do not show the distribution of individual device ages, so they should not be interpreted as a minimum, maximum or universal policy. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “Average Age at Retirement,” p. 5
Workstation equipment spending statistics: hardware budgets and retirement plans
In Cascade’s 2025 survey, respondents described their expected IT hardware investment relative to 2024. The report says 47% anticipated maintaining the same investment level, 31% projected an increase, and 10% expected to spend less. These are respondent expectations about organization-level IT hardware investment, not measured spending outcomes or workstation-only budgets. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “IT Hardware Investments,” p. 7
The retirement-age chart provides a separate view: the reported ages of assets respondents expected to retire in 2025. For laptops, 35% of responses placed planned retirements at 4 years old, 23% at 3 years old and 23% at 5 years old. For desktops, 25% were reported as 4 years old and 21% as 5 years old. The percentages refer to the chart’s reported age categories for planned 2025 retirements, rather than all laptops or desktops in service.
| Device planned for retirement in 2025 | Reported age category | Share of responses |
|---|---|---|
| Laptops | 3 years old | 23% |
| Laptops | 4 years old | 35% |
| Laptops | 5 years old | 23% |
| Desktops | 4 years old | 25% |
| Desktops | 5 years old | 21% |
The retirement-age categories add detail to the average-age series, but the measures answer different questions. The averages describe retirement ages observed in 2020, 2022 and 2024; this chart describes the ages of assets respondents expected to retire in 2025. The listed categories are the supported values here, not a complete age distribution. No unreported category should be inferred from these entries. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, planned 2025 retirement-age chart, p. 5
Together, the budget and age findings describe expectations and plans rather than realized purchases or completed retirements. A stable investment outlook can coexist with a planned retirement list, but these survey results do not establish how organizations allocate budgets among replacement devices, other IT hardware or services. Nor do they identify a cause for a particular replacement age. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, pp. 5, 7
workstation equipment spending: Workstation asset tracking and data security findings
Cascade’s 2024 results report how respondents track laptop and desktop inventories. For laptops, 81% said they tracked all devices and 6% said they tracked some. For desktops, 65% reported tracking all devices and 6% reported tracking some. The figures distinguish complete from partial tracking responses; they are survey answers, not independently audited inventory coverage. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “What types of assets do you track?”, p. 8
| Device | Tracked all | Tracked some |
|---|---|---|
| Laptops | 81% | 6% |
| Desktops | 65% | 6% |
The reported all-device tracking share is higher for laptops than desktops in this survey, while the some-device share is 6% for both. The table does not reproduce the source’s other response categories, such as none, unsure or not applicable, because the values used here concern all and some tracking. A difference in reported tracking responses alone does not explain the underlying inventory processes or establish the quality of asset records. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “What types of assets do you track?”, p. 8
The report also asks how respondents secure device data before sending equipment off-site for disposal. Electronic sanitization was reported for 60% of laptops and 50% of desktops. Encryption was reported for 19% of laptops and 15% of desktops. The source lists these as separate practices; the figures do not establish that respondents selected only one method or that the categories exhaust every possible procedure. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, “How do you secure the data on devices before sending them off-site for disposal?”, p. 8
| Device | Electronically sanitized data | Encrypted data |
|---|---|---|
| Laptops | 60% | 19% |
| Desktops | 50% | 15% |
These findings connect asset management with end-of-life handling: organizations reported both whether they track devices and selected ways they secure data before off-site disposal. The measures remain self-reported survey results from 2024. They do not measure the effectiveness of sanitization, verify that every asset was processed, or describe the handling of devices that were not sent off-site. Source: Cascade, 2025 ITAD Benchmarking Report, p. 8
workstation equipment spending: Workstation procurement and standard configurations
A 2016 Government Accountability Office report summarized the Office of Management and Budget’s Category Management Policy for Workstations. The policy condition stated that nearly 80% of basic federal laptop and desktop needs could be met through 5 standard configurations. Separately, the policy directed agency chief information officers to ensure that at least 80% of an agency’s new basic laptop and desktop requirements were satisfied with a standard configuration, unless an exception applied. The first figure describes the share of needs the configurations could meet; the second is a procurement requirement with an exception clause. Source: GAO-17-164, Table 5, p. 30
GAO also reported that the remainder of civilian laptop and desktop spending was spread across more than 2,400 additional contracts, after approximately one-third of spending was accounted for by the 3 largest government-wide acquisition solutions. This is historical procurement context reported in 2016, not a current contract count or a measure of private-sector buying. It describes the civilian government procurement landscape considered in the report. Source: GAO-17-164, Table 5, p. 30
Standard configurations and centralized acquisition arrangements are relevant to workstation spending because they define how basic requirements can be specified and purchased within the federal policy described by GAO. The figures do not quantify savings achieved, establish that every workstation requirement fit a standard option, or show how agencies outside the policy context procure equipment. The report’s date and federal scope should remain attached to these procurement findings. Source: GAO-17-164, Table 5, p. 30