Is Most IT Really Corrupt?
-
@dashrender said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller I think what we're really pointing at is that SMBs settle when it comes to staffing, a LOT. Enterprises often don't settle until they feel they have to, because they can afford to do so while SMBs I believe more frequently cannot.
This is true to some degree. SMBs settle because they want to, however. SMBs have access to the MSP/ITSP market that Enterprises realistically do not. There are more resources available to the SMB market than the SMB market is willing to utilize - sure if all SMBs decided to hire well they'd be screwed, but they just don't bother leaving loads of good talent wasted whether individual or *SP oriented.
Enterprises rarely leave the good people on the market, someone snaps them up quickly. But SMBs decide to forego good hiring the majority of the time. Any SMB that wants good people can get them pretty easily. So while they might decide to settle, it's not because they have to.
I assume that Scott specifically means to terms of compensation - if the SMB wanted a good highly qualified person, they'd simply have to offer the compensation to make someone want to work there.
Well maybe, but also soft benefits. Lots of SMBs struggle because of location. I know people making amazing salaries that will likely quit their jobs almost exclusively because of the location. Company is great, people are great, vacation plan is good, health benefits are good, money is great... but the location is... drab.
SMBs often struggle to offer desired locations and tend to fail to offer vacation, health and work from home benefits that enterprises often offer. And travel is nearly unheard of.
SMBs could do all these kinds of things and get anyone that they wanted out of the enterprise (almost). The one big barrier that they can't overcome is that they rarely offer interesting problems. SMBs tend to be extremely "cookie cutter" through no fault of their own and this can make them less enticing for people seeking a challenge.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
How would you say good MSPs should be solving that problem, since any MSP can spout off numbers, point at satisfaction rates, and still be pretty terrible while looking impressive to the uninformed on such matters?
I've never seen this problem in the real world. Good and bad MSPs are pretty easy to tell apart. And not with technical knowledge, but with standard common sense and business knowledge. It's not perfect, but it's pretty effective. Knowing when MSPs present information well, don't sell solutions and hide being a vendor rep, have long term strategies, talk intelligently about the business needs, investigate business needs, act as a partner, etc. is really easy to see. If SMBs were filtering MSPs on these basic "anyone can do it, no tech needed" factors and still had issues finding MSPs, then we could talk about the difficulties of filtering further. But in the real world, it's pretty trivial to filter out the bad MSPs.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
...since any MSP can spout off numbers, point at satisfaction rates, and still be pretty terrible while looking impressive to the uninformed on such matters?
None of those things should be impressive. That's part of the trick
-
@scottalanmiller I must have really lucked out with a killer good SMB then, as I get all of the above benefits you mentioned including some paid travel (once, maybe twice a year atm), excepting work from home benefits. That may materialize in the next year or so anyway when my organization may well absorb another organization that is essentially just like mine in a neighboring county that would require us to become a multi-location organization, thereby forcing some de-centralization to occur. My one big gripe with our current Executive is that the he is very anti-remote access for some reason.
I suppose one of the issues I've experienced with vetting MSPs is that I've not run into many SMBs that weren't technology-savvy who even knew what the difference between an MSP, a VAR, and a vendor rep were about as often as not. However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance. You know, marketing BS instead of just trying to do their jobs and sell us what we want/need, lol. It all sounded impressive to the others in management, as they didn't know enough to know why the marketing was just BS. We do have an MSP who while we really don't like the MSPs owner, we like the folks actually working there, as they have/do partner with us to back me up and offer real value.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
I suppose one of the issues I've experienced with vetting MSPs is that I've not run into many SMBs that weren't technology-savvy who even knew what the difference between an MSP, a VAR, and a vendor rep were about as often as not.
But none of those things have anything whatsoever to do with technology. If an SMB can't tell those apart they are not savvy, period. Technology knowledge wouldn't help them know the difference, only common sense and/or business knowledge. If they can't tell the difference, how do they tie their shoes or feed themselves? These are insanely trivial things to figure out unless your MSP is actively lying and that's a totally different issue and you have legal recourse for that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@dashrender said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller I think what we're really pointing at is that SMBs settle when it comes to staffing, a LOT. Enterprises often don't settle until they feel they have to, because they can afford to do so while SMBs I believe more frequently cannot.
This is true to some degree. SMBs settle because they want to, however. SMBs have access to the MSP/ITSP market that Enterprises realistically do not. There are more resources available to the SMB market than the SMB market is willing to utilize - sure if all SMBs decided to hire well they'd be screwed, but they just don't bother leaving loads of good talent wasted whether individual or *SP oriented.
Enterprises rarely leave the good people on the market, someone snaps them up quickly. But SMBs decide to forego good hiring the majority of the time. Any SMB that wants good people can get them pretty easily. So while they might decide to settle, it's not because they have to.
I assume that Scott specifically means to terms of compensation - if the SMB wanted a good highly qualified person, they'd simply have to offer the compensation to make someone want to work there.
Well maybe, but also soft benefits. Lots of SMBs struggle because of location. I know people making amazing salaries that will likely quit their jobs almost exclusively because of the location. Company is great, people are great, vacation plan is good, health benefits are good, money is great... but the location is... drab.
SMBs often struggle to offer desired locations and tend to fail to offer vacation, health and work from home benefits that enterprises often offer. And travel is nearly unheard of.
SMBs could do all these kinds of things and get anyone that they wanted out of the enterprise (almost). The one big barrier that they can't overcome is that they rarely offer interesting problems. SMBs tend to be extremely "cookie cutter" through no fault of their own and this can make them less enticing for people seeking a challenge.
Here's my thoughts on the location, travel, problem scale...
Working for a SMB I had to drive to a part of town where you needed a gun to go to lunch. I know a MSP who actually made anyone who visited several SMB clients have CHL's for liability concerns. Meanwhile, enterprises in the area allow work from home, nice downtown offices with tunnel network access so you don't get sweaty going to lunch, and 30 floor window views for the IT staff. The MSP I worked for had a nice view lunch onsite, and tons of places to eat/drink after work.
Working for a SMB I had to take off work to go to Spiceworld, and the one conference I went to was tiny, in Florida, and I had to share a room with my boss. Working for a MSP I was encouraged to go and it was paid for with my own room. Working for an enterprise I can go to as many conferences as I want, including international ones, and I can book at the Shangrai La and no one makes a fuss.
On the problem front, I went from dealing with how to "scale" a system from 30 users to 50, at a SMB to a MSP where I had to migrate 35 file servers and 25K users from Novel to Active Directory and new workstations in 2 weeks. At an enterprise, I have conversations with sizing a 5PB storage solution and think "this isn't that big really".
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
My one big gripe with our current Executive is that the he is very anti-remote access for some reason.
Emotions. SMBs will often punish their workers simply because they dislike people more than they like profits. Willing to sabotage the organization for some personal emotional benefit.
That's not to say that working remotely is best in all cases. But being against it emotionally instead of considering it as a business decision is actively not doing his job as an executive and exactly the kind of problem I see in the SMB - either hurting the company through incompetence or outright overt corruption.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance. You know, marketing BS instead of just trying to do their jobs and sell us what we want/need, lol. It all sounded impressive to the others in management, as they didn't know enough to know why the marketing was just BS
To be fair, many in house IT staff don't get what the business needs are. (It's fairly common). I've seen many times where internal IT thought their goal was to cut costs (buying desktops or cheap heavy laptops for sales people) and missed out on what the business need was (Sales people who could work from anywhere and would benefit from SaaS Mobile apps, and high battery low weight ultrabooks). Don't conflate a recommendation to spend money on things you don't see value in, without things that DON"T actually have value to the business. Looking back to my time working in house at a SMB Dunning–Kruger effect was common in our department.
-
@scottalanmiller Ironically, we're actually non-profit and he works from home. Only one director is allowed to work from home simply due to sheer workload requirements negating any other way to make all the things that need to happen, happen at times. I'm certain it's far more likely an emotional decision than a business one, because there's really no practical reason that for instance, I cannot work remotely as often as not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
My one big gripe with our current Executive is that the he is very anti-remote access for some reason.
Emotions. SMBs will often punish their workers simply because they dislike people more than they like profits. Willing to sabotage the organization for some personal emotional benefit.
That's not to say that working remotely is best in all cases. But being against it emotionally instead of considering it as a business decision is actively not doing his job as an executive and exactly the kind of problem I see in the SMB - either hurting the company through incompetence or outright overt corruption.
had a hilarious meeting with a VP who was over an IT department at a SMB. He was explaining why he wanted to fire the department manager.
"Some days he comes in late and works from home. He sets an awful example for the younger staff! How can they ever expect to have any work ethic like that!"
Had to calmly explain that work from home and flex time is common in our industry, and if they wanted to make people work 8-5 always be on call and only have 1 week of vacation they needed to double their staff to absorb the on call, risk higher attrition or give everyone a 40% pay raise they wanted to keep. Being a consultant was fun some days.
Equity owners in SMB's often expect everyone to work like they have equity even when they don't is a common issue I see. the "We view our company like family" I often find translated to "We wish we could claim the labor exemptions for overtime and wages that farmers can for their 13 yr old kids!"
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller Ironically, we're actually non-profit and he works from home. Only one director is allowed to work from home simply due to sheer workload requirements negating any other way to make all the things that need to happen, happen at times. I'm certain it's far more likely an emotional decision than a business one, because there's really no practical reason that for instance, I cannot work remotely as often as not.
Non-profit IT is kinda a mess in how they do staffing. It tends to fall into....
- I'm going to hire my friends or people who know donors.
- People who will work for less and believe in the mission (which is strange, because they should just go work somewhere else and then volunteer on the side)
- People who were desperate to get that position/title and are underqualified to the point that they will work for the 30% less.
- The sadly rarer than they should non-profits who run like a corporation, pay market rates, and do the objective skill based hiring.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance.
Well keep in mind that an MSP by definition means that you adapt to them. If you are choosing the MSP subset of the ITSP market, that's an up front expectation. ITSPs might be more flexible and be there to do whatever you need, rather than having a pre-packaged product that you conform to.
-
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@scottalanmiller Ironically, we're actually non-profit and he works from home. Only one director is allowed to work from home simply due to sheer workload requirements negating any other way to make all the things that need to happen, happen at times. I'm certain it's far more likely an emotional decision than a business one, because there's really no practical reason that for instance, I cannot work remotely as often as not.
The greater the workload, the more important that people not be wasting time commuting, talking at the water cooler, etc.
-
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance. You know, marketing BS instead of just trying to do their jobs and sell us what we want/need, lol. It all sounded impressive to the others in management, as they didn't know enough to know why the marketing was just BS
To be fair, many in house IT staff don't get what the business needs are. (It's fairly common). I've seen many times where internal IT thought their goal was to cut costs (buying desktops or cheap heavy laptops for sales people) and missed out on what the business need was (Sales people who could work from anywhere and would benefit from SaaS Mobile apps, and high battery low weight ultrabooks). Don't conflate a recommendation to spend money on things you don't see value in, without things that DON"T actually have value to the business. Looking back to my time working in house at a SMB Dunning–Kruger effect was common in our department.
Yeah, this is one I have to remind myself of often.
-
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
- People who will work for less and believe in the mission (which is strange, because they should just go work somewhere else and then volunteer on the side)
That's what I always did.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance.
Well keep in mind that an MSP by definition means that you adapt to them. If you are choosing the MSP subset of the ITSP market, that's an up front expectation. ITSPs might be more flexible and be there to do whatever you need, rather than having a pre-packaged product that you conform to.
Lets say you think Juniper or Checkpoint is a better firewall for what you do. Fine. But if you pick MSP A, and they exclusively use Palo Alto firewalls, you are getting a Palo Alto. The "benefits" of the checkpoint will likely be offset by the fact that they have 3-4 people on staff who are certified in Palo Alto, and can do anything you need in seconds vs. someone who knows 3-4 vendors costs them more to staff and is slower on all platforms.
Now if the MSP is standardized on technology that will not work for you (You have windows apps and they are a Mac OS only, or Linux Virtual Desktop only MSP) then maybe they are the wrong MSP. Maybe they focus on Accounting only clients, and you want a MSP that will do full stack support for some Sage ERP system. That's another example of a bad fit.
90% of the time I see people complain about the products a MSP will bring in they may be technically right (Brocade VDX, or Dell Servers is a better product than say Meraki, or HPE Procurve, or Cisco UCS servers) but if you can fit within their bubble of supported products you get to enjoy crazy cost savings by piggybacking on their procurement scale, their support scale, and their training/experience being focused.
-
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
Equity owners in SMB's often expect everyone to work like they have equity even when they don't is a common issue I see. the "We view our company like family" I often find translated to "We wish we could claim the labor exemptions for overtime and wages that farmers can for their 13 yr old kids!"
I totally saw where you were going with this as I was reading it, and while I've never really thought about it this way, you're absolutely right! They think everyone should work as hard as they do, likely completely forgetting that no one else gets bonuses/profit sharing in most SMB cases, so why would they ever care about your SMB as much as the owners do?
-
@dashrender said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@tirendir said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
However, I will say that the acting as a partner versus a vendor, service provider, or a supplier has been very noticeable in the MSPs I've talked with, as most of the MSPs I've talked with seem to be all about what they can do for us instead of what we actually need or want them to do for instance. You know, marketing BS instead of just trying to do their jobs and sell us what we want/need, lol. It all sounded impressive to the others in management, as they didn't know enough to know why the marketing was just BS
To be fair, many in house IT staff don't get what the business needs are. (It's fairly common). I've seen many times where internal IT thought their goal was to cut costs (buying desktops or cheap heavy laptops for sales people) and missed out on what the business need was (Sales people who could work from anywhere and would benefit from SaaS Mobile apps, and high battery low weight ultrabooks). Don't conflate a recommendation to spend money on things you don't see value in, without things that DON"T actually have value to the business. Looking back to my time working in house at a SMB Dunning–Kruger effect was common in our department.
Yeah, this is one I have to remind myself of often.
In consulting I would always invite the software developers, and a few random users and the operations management at customers to lunch and leave the Sysadmins behind. You learned what the REAL value of performance, uptime, and a given application was talking to them. It was comical how out of touch in house sysadmins get (Hey, I used to be one too). Oddly enterprises tend to do a better job at this because they have dedicated non-technical IT management functions (CIO's, Directors) who's jobs are to bridge with other BU's and departments.
-
@dashrender said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
Equity owners in SMB's often expect everyone to work like they have equity even when they don't is a common issue I see. the "We view our company like family" I often find translated to "We wish we could claim the labor exemptions for overtime and wages that farmers can for their 13 yr old kids!"
I totally saw where you were going with this as I was reading it, and while I've never really thought about it this way, you're absolutely right! They think everyone should work as hard as they do, likely completely forgetting that no one else gets bonuses/profit sharing in most SMB cases, so why would they ever care about your SMB as much as the owners do?
SMB's suck your life force out like a succubus except the succubus isn't a beautiful woman, she is just average.
-
@dashrender said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
@storageninja said in Is Most IT Really Corrupt?:
Equity owners in SMB's often expect everyone to work like they have equity even when they don't is a common issue I see. the "We view our company like family" I often find translated to "We wish we could claim the labor exemptions for overtime and wages that farmers can for their 13 yr old kids!"
I totally saw where you were going with this as I was reading it, and while I've never really thought about it this way, you're absolutely right! They think everyone should work as hard as they do, likely completely forgetting that no one else gets bonuses/profit sharing in most SMB cases, so why would they ever care about your SMB as much as the owners do?
