The MSP Model fails more often than not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
My guess is that in the middle you get more companies that attempt to take on too much and cause issues by getting to "hands on" outside of their expertise.
This is probably the whole issue in a nutshell.
To be really successful, and MSP probably needs to be pretty big, it probably won't do very well at only 2-4 people. But if you have say 20, where you have 2+ storage guys, and 2+ Windows server guys, and 2+ Windows workstation guys, and 2+ linux workstation guys, and 2+ infrastructure guys, etc, etc, etc... well then you probably really start seeing the benefits of the MSP. You pay a flat rate to the MSP, and you get access to all of those people... but as mentioned, that flat rate is going to be pretty huge. Definitely more than the cost of a single onsite IT server guy, but less than 10 specialists.
The rub is most SMBs are just cheap - aren't willing to put the expenses where perhaps they should be, and instead cheap out, hense so many of the posts we have at SW.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
And why wouldn't internal IT get the same IT knowledge that the MSP would - two people, same role, same access to MSPs for advice, help and training. You just seem to keep going round and round saying MSPs are better but not really explaining how. On the one hand you say MSPs are different (and so better), on the other hand you say MSPs are exactly the same (as so no worse).
But I keep saying how...
- Scope
- Focus
- Flexibility
- Longevity
- Cost
- Scale
- Training
- Management
Wait, I think I have the phrase that makes the difference....
-
@Carnival-Boy said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
I'd argue that the more complex it is, the more having good structure and support is important.
I agree and that's where I think internal IT wins. MSPs tend to be very good at IT, but lack the business understanding, because they don't work in the business, they work in IT. Good internal IT staff have both IT and business expertise.
Sadly I completely disagree with this statement. Most IT guys at the small end don't know their business at all, they don't consider it their job - and worse, management at the company doesn't either, management considers it management's job, but they don't really do it either.. so it's never really done.
-
Does this phrase help:
IT Service Providers can work, and do work, in every way identically to internal staff (with obvious exceptions of who writes the checks) and any and all deviations from this identical state is assumed to be done for the purpose of being additionally beneficial.
Does that make sense? MSPs can do literally anything internal staff can do. If there is something you think internal staff is good for, MSPs can match that, every time. I'm arguing that "physics" makes this happen, that MSPs staff are employees at that point, they are both. So that it's actually impossible to say that internal is better, because MSP can be internal.
But then, anytime that a business chooses to use an MSP in any way that is not identical to how they would have used internal staff, then that is a business believing that they have found a benefit to the model - which could be in any number of areas.
That's why I'm saying it is a "cake and eat it too" scenario. The MSP adds options while taking none away. But requires nothing. So any perceived negative aspect of an MSP can simply be avoided, any perceived benefit can be chosen.
-
@Dashrender said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
My guess is that in the middle you get more companies that attempt to take on too much and cause issues by getting to "hands on" outside of their expertise.
This is probably the whole issue in a nutshell.
To be really successful, and MSP probably needs to be pretty big, it probably won't do very well at only 2-4 people. But if you have say 20, where you have 2+ storage guys, and 2+ Windows server guys, and 2+ Windows workstation guys, and 2+ linux workstation guys, and 2+ infrastructure guys, etc, etc, etc... well then you probably really start seeing the benefits of the MSP. You pay a flat rate to the MSP, and you get access to all of those people... but as mentioned, that flat rate is going to be pretty huge. Definitely more than the cost of a single onsite IT server guy, but less than 10 specialists.
Not true that you need more than the cost of one guy. Working for an MSP, I can tell you that if businesses didn't demand random costly things burning up their hours, they'd almost never need even a single full time person even in relatively large organizations. The idea that almost anyone needs a full time "equivalent" is normally untrue. It's a rare shop that can justify that much time.
-
@Dashrender said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@Carnival-Boy said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
I'd argue that the more complex it is, the more having good structure and support is important.
I agree and that's where I think internal IT wins. MSPs tend to be very good at IT, but lack the business understanding, because they don't work in the business, they work in IT. Good internal IT staff have both IT and business expertise.
Sadly I completely disagree with this statement. Most IT guys at the small end don't know their business at all, they don't consider it their job - and worse, management at the company doesn't either, management considers it management's job, but they don't really do it either.. so it's never really done.
That's what we see in SW non-stop. No one ever knows their business. The MSPs (and just some better IT people) in threads start to ask more about the business than the internal people have ever considered. It's crazy. They work internally and surprisingly often have zero idea about their business!
-
It's also a challenge for any employee to "know" their own business well if they haven't worked for many. Knowing the absolutes about a business is only one part of the picture, knowing it relative to other businesses is important too.
Like the guy that swore that VMware was doing a great job for his company. But he'd never used any other product. So actually had no idea if VMware was working well or not. He literally just lied about it in the hopes that no one would question it. A bit extreme, but the concept is the same. You might think you are an effective business but then learn everything you did cost twice as much as it cost your competitors.
-
@Dashrender said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
The rub is most SMBs are just cheap - aren't willing to put the expenses where perhaps they should be, and instead cheap out, hense so many of the posts we have at SW.
I can only really speak from personal experience. My company pays for several different IT companies to support us (MSPs etc), so we get training, and we get access to many different IT experts to help, support, and advise us. We don't run internal IT because we're cheap.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
The only times that I see the MSPs not having the same knowledge that internal IT does is not MSP vs. Internal but always a business that keeps the MSPs at arm's length and doesn't bring them full time in house like they would with internal staff. By treating them differently (french fries vs. onion rings) they force them to be different. But when treated the same, the same benefits apply.
Right - if today they are internal, and tomorrow they simply get their check from the MSP instead of internal, then yeah, that's true, but I'm not sure how it works when the MSP augments internal? Would it now be the requirement of the MSP employees to pass along all business understandings to the MSP so that future MSP workers who need to work at the client are aware of this information?
-
@Dashrender said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
The only times that I see the MSPs not having the same knowledge that internal IT does is not MSP vs. Internal but always a business that keeps the MSPs at arm's length and doesn't bring them full time in house like they would with internal staff. By treating them differently (french fries vs. onion rings) they force them to be different. But when treated the same, the same benefits apply.
Right - if today they are internal, and tomorrow they simply get their check from the MSP instead of internal, then yeah, that's true, but I'm not sure how it works when the MSP augments internal? Would it now be the requirement of the MSP employees to pass along all business understandings to the MSP so that future MSP workers who need to work at the client are aware of this information?
That would be normal. It's not intrinsic to the model any more than it is for internal staff. But the MSP as a lot more incentive to do it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
That's why I'm saying it is a "cake and eat it too" scenario. The MSP adds options while taking none away. But requires nothing. So any perceived negative aspect of an MSP can simply be avoided, any perceived benefit can be chosen.
It can't require nothing, unless the overhead of the MSP is zero, but it's not zero, so.... it has to be more expensive than in house, unless you are firing someone who managed the in house, then I could say you are getting a wash.
-
test
-
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@Breffni-Potter said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
- When an external is brought in, Often it is a deliberate decision to save costs by removing the internal team afterwards. Regardless of competence, performance or anything else, the decision just boils down to money saved, not what delivers the best return on investment.
This may be true, but not something I see in the real world. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen this first hand as an MSP, but I've seen it from internal IT people that think it is happening. I'm not totally sure that I know any internal people that were replaced with an MSP, but I'm certain it happens. But commonly? I'm not sure about that. It's repeated as a fear a lot, but of the MSPs and internal people here (which is everyone), how many of you had an MSP brought in and then had them replace you OR were brought in as an MSP and you replaced the people that were already there?
As an MSP, we've done attrition fill ins often (replacing people who leave) but not replacing people who still work there. Sometimes it's to let someone working in IT to move into management or something else, but that's IT attrition even if not corporate attrition.
To be honest, I've more often seen MSPs replaced by in-house IT because, on paper, it costs less to just pay one guy to deal with everything and be forced into a jack-of-all-trades situation than to pay the MSP price for the added value.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@Breffni-Potter said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
- When an external is brought in, Often it is a deliberate decision to save costs by removing the internal team afterwards. Regardless of competence, performance or anything else, the decision just boils down to money saved, not what delivers the best return on investment.
This may be true, but not something I see in the real world. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen this first hand as an MSP, but I've seen it from internal IT people that think it is happening. I'm not totally sure that I know any internal people that were replaced with an MSP, but I'm certain it happens. But commonly? I'm not sure about that. It's repeated as a fear a lot, but of the MSPs and internal people here (which is everyone), how many of you had an MSP brought in and then had them replace you OR were brought in as an MSP and you replaced the people that were already there?
As an MSP, we've done attrition fill ins often (replacing people who leave) but not replacing people who still work there. Sometimes it's to let someone working in IT to move into management or something else, but that's IT attrition even if not corporate attrition.
To be honest, I've more often seen MSPs replaced by in-house IT because, on paper, it costs less to just pay one guy to deal with everything and be forced into a jack-of-all-trades situation than to pay the MSP price for the added value.
Which brings us back to the point that most SMBs are cheap.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@Breffni-Potter said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
- When an external is brought in, Often it is a deliberate decision to save costs by removing the internal team afterwards. Regardless of competence, performance or anything else, the decision just boils down to money saved, not what delivers the best return on investment.
This may be true, but not something I see in the real world. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen this first hand as an MSP, but I've seen it from internal IT people that think it is happening. I'm not totally sure that I know any internal people that were replaced with an MSP, but I'm certain it happens. But commonly? I'm not sure about that. It's repeated as a fear a lot, but of the MSPs and internal people here (which is everyone), how many of you had an MSP brought in and then had them replace you OR were brought in as an MSP and you replaced the people that were already there?
As an MSP, we've done attrition fill ins often (replacing people who leave) but not replacing people who still work there. Sometimes it's to let someone working in IT to move into management or something else, but that's IT attrition even if not corporate attrition.
To be honest, I've more often seen MSPs replaced by in-house IT because, on paper, it costs less to just pay one guy to deal with everything and be forced into a jack-of-all-trades situation than to pay the MSP price for the added value.
Exactly.. that is what my customer did - there was a mismatch of understandings and therefore the client felt that they were wasting money (aka getting no value) and instead hired a person on a time and materials basis. They are definitely getting much less value than they were before, but perhaps they didn't need the value they were getting.
-
I know something that I see as rampant for both internal IT and MSP's both is a VERY mismatched understanding of what the business wants. And what the business owners want isn't necessarily anything to do with IT either. IT is a necessary evil for most SMB's they want whatever makes it easy for them to figure out what IT is doing.
A good MSP or internal person for that matter. Will take the time to actually figure it all out.
-
@Minion-Queen said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
I know something that I see as rampant for both internal IT and MSP's both is a VERY mismatched understanding of what the business wants. And what the business owners want isn't necessarily anything to do with IT either. IT is a necessary evil for most SMB's they want whatever makes it easy for them to figure out what IT is doing.
A good MSP or internal person for that matter. Will take the time to actually figure it all out.
But that often requires allowing IT to be part of the business process - otherwise the management needs to do that. IT can't work/exist in a vacuum.
-
@Minion-Queen said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
I know something that I see as rampant for both internal IT and MSP's both is a VERY mismatched understanding of what the business wants. And what the business owners want isn't necessarily anything to do with IT either. IT is a necessary evil for most SMB's they want whatever makes it easy for them to figure out what IT is doing.
A good MSP or internal person for that matter. Will take the time to actually figure it all out.
A large portion of my work at my last job was actually helping the business units making requests to IT figure out what they actually needed. A good internal IT team, or MSP will be able to look past the language barrier (Geek Speak vs Bad/Non-Geek Speak).
If they're not doing that, are they really doing their job?
-
@Dashrender said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
That's why I'm saying it is a "cake and eat it too" scenario. The MSP adds options while taking none away. But requires nothing. So any perceived negative aspect of an MSP can simply be avoided, any perceived benefit can be chosen.
It can't require nothing, unless the overhead of the MSP is zero, but it's not zero, so.... it has to be more expensive than in house, unless you are firing someone who managed the in house, then I could say you are getting a wash.
See my other posts about how MSPs are actually naturally cheaper due to better efficiency in management, hiring, attracting talent, retaining talent, etc. If we ignore all those pieces, yes there would be a nominal necessary increase in overhead (unless other things like HR, payroll and whatever are more efficient which really can happen easily).
-
@thanksajdotcom said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@scottalanmiller said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
@Breffni-Potter said in The MSP Model fails more often than not.:
- When an external is brought in, Often it is a deliberate decision to save costs by removing the internal team afterwards. Regardless of competence, performance or anything else, the decision just boils down to money saved, not what delivers the best return on investment.
This may be true, but not something I see in the real world. I'm not sure I've actually ever seen this first hand as an MSP, but I've seen it from internal IT people that think it is happening. I'm not totally sure that I know any internal people that were replaced with an MSP, but I'm certain it happens. But commonly? I'm not sure about that. It's repeated as a fear a lot, but of the MSPs and internal people here (which is everyone), how many of you had an MSP brought in and then had them replace you OR were brought in as an MSP and you replaced the people that were already there?
As an MSP, we've done attrition fill ins often (replacing people who leave) but not replacing people who still work there. Sometimes it's to let someone working in IT to move into management or something else, but that's IT attrition even if not corporate attrition.
To be honest, I've more often seen MSPs replaced by in-house IT because, on paper, it costs less to just pay one guy to deal with everything and be forced into a jack-of-all-trades situation than to pay the MSP price for the added value.
It's very true. That's what we see all the time. Companies thinking that they can replace huge teams of part time people with one guy that they hope to work into the ground. Pretty much always get burned in the long run.
