Size of MSPs
-
Look at where @thanksajdotcom is. He works for an MSP that is a real MSP/VAR. They focus on one product, the services are managed (predefined packages) and they have a lot of staff. Some of that staff is pretty technical. But a lot of it are not even really IT people but just call center staff who take calls and run through predefined scripts that they do not necessarily even understand.
When MSP models get larger, this is a very typical way that they staff up. That's not good or bad, just why they tend to get a lot of staff quickly when being successful.
But as someone who knows hundreds or possibly thousands of MSPs directly and has serviced many, the number that are that large are pretty small. But they certainly exist. NTG used to do all of the IT for an MSP that was over 65 people! Not one of them would I classify as an L1. They were all "bench support" or "call center" staff. Anything requiring IT knowledge, including extremely basic internal IT, had to be outsourced to NTG.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Bundy & Associates is an IT Outsourcer, not an MSP. We do not sell blocks of time or managed services.
We sell our time, billed hourly. Period. We do not resell hardware. We do not resell software.
We are a full IT Outsourcer. Among our employees, we can do anything IT related, from networks, to servers, to desktops, to helpdesk, to software develeopment, to business intelligence.
This is what an IT Outsourcer is. We are oyur IT department. We are just not your employee.
OK. So if that is the definition of an IT Outsourcer, what is an MSP?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
OK. So if that is the definition of an IT Outsourcer, what is an MSP?
See @scottalanmiller's post preceding yours.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
My whole point is that the average MSP is likely very small, based on what I've observed over the past decade, because of exactly this - tons of MSPs are one man shops. I guess you are saying that @Hubtech is not an MSP then? If so, what is that company?
Possibly the average. There are likely to be more small MSPs than large, but the large MSPs may still provide 95% of the industry. Most people I know use the massive players like Softcat and Pheonix - but there are only a handful of massive players.
Also, small companies may prefer to use small MSPs, so Spiceworks will see a larger number operating there. But medium and large companies will use medium and large MSPs.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
OK. So if that is the definition of an IT Outsourcer, what is an MSP?
I've definited it twice already. It's not outsourcing IT like an IT department. IT Outsourcer is really a broad term that MSP would fall under. But MSPs package their services and provide "managed" services, not straight IT.
Think of it as boxed services. You can't ask NTG or Bundy what we offer. There is no list. We offer IT. All of it. Sure, there are things we can't do, no one can actually do everything, but NTG defines what we do as the service list of an internal, enterprise IT department. Highly niche services are always outsourced to vendors or MSPs when things get unique enough, even if you are Apple, Walmart or Exxon Mobil.
MSPs have a service list. They do X and Y. They often are VARs too with what they sell tied to the support that they provide. They generally define how you will use their services so that what they do is predictable. You adjust to them, not them to you. This has a lot of advantages, but obviously, is less flexible. That's why the provides that @Breffni-Potter listed needed to "develop new managed services" to provide them. They have to come up with the package that they support, how they support it, how it is priced, etc. They have to make it so that non-tech or lower-tech staff can do most of the support because everything is tested, bundled and predictable and rarely needs real IT knowledge to manage.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's why the provides that @Breffni-Potter listed needed to "develop new managed services" to provide them. They have to come up with the package that they support, how they support it, how it is priced, etc.
I can tell you that the list @Breffni-Potter gave are IT Outsourcers then, not MSPs, based on your definition.
-
It's hard to define different service models without trying to sound like one is better than the other. I don't think that this is true. Straight IT Outsourcing is good for one customer, MSP is good for another. MSPs are easier to sell to customers because they are easier to explain. As an IT Outsourcer one of our biggest problems is that customers expect that everyone is an MSP plus a VAR and expect us to define everything, sell them everything and make money in places where we don't while providing a service and feature list that we don't have. Given them unlimited options makes them tend to flail and fail. So that is a tough challenge. But we almost never rip and replace to make things fit our "model" since we don't have one. Every customer is unique and treated the same as if we were their IT, not an outside firm with a package to sell. But this makes services more expensive because we can't scale in the same way and use low cost people to offload most of the labour.
NTG would love to develop an MSP model to run side by side but has never figured out exactly how to do that. That is something that we are looking into because it would help with offering a more complete set of services.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's why the provides that @Breffni-Potter listed needed to "develop new managed services" to provide them. They have to come up with the package that they support, how they support it, how it is priced, etc.
I can tell you that the list @Breffni-Potter gave are IT Outsourcers then, not MSPs, based on your definition.
Nope, you didn't read their pages. They were very specifically MSPs because they provide packages, not open services. SoftCat especially was very solid MSP.
You can normally tell if a vendor lists their "partners" all over their site. IT Outsourcers rarely do that because it doesn't really make any sense. Who cares who the partners are? You don't have partners for an internal IT department. That doesn't even make sense for an IT Outsourcer.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You don't have partners for an internal IT department. That doesn't even make sense for an IT Outsourcer.
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
-
Basically, to reiterate what @scottalanmiller said, if you have a list of specific services you support, products you offer, and products you work on, you're an MSP, because you define what you CAN do for the customer. An IT Outsourcer is basically someone who will walk into your environment and adjust the work and fill the needs of their staff to match what your company has. So with an MSP, if you had some system they didn't know or support, you'd have to find another vendor to handle that piece. With a true IT Oursourcer, the IT Outsourcer would find someone to join the staff or partner with another company to provide the support for that product, because they do everything.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You don't have partners for an internal IT department. That doesn't even make sense for an IT Outsourcer.
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
Not necessarily. Many partners don't have any special skillsets with the companies they're partner with. Sometimes it just means they're a very high-volume reseller, which makes them a VAR.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Nope, you didn't read their pages.
I don't need to, Softcat and Pheonix are vendors of mine.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nope, you didn't read their pages.
I don't need to, Softcat and Pheonix are vendors of mine.
What do they provide for you? SoftCat's site specifically says that they have to develop new services to offer. Do you get packaged services from them?
-
I totally agree with @scottalanmiller's point about IT Outsourcers not being quite so defined and "boxed in" in what they do. This makes it harder to talk to non-technical people, because in most other fields, everything is spelled out and defined from a service standpoint. However, when someone looks at you and goes "given our environment, what can you support" and your answer is "yes", they don't know how to respond, because they're used to specialized, bulleted lists, not broad-sweeping statements. They will often go to people who can give them that, even it means having multiple companies doing support and poorer service, simply because they're more comfortable having limited expectations than just a one-stop shop.
-
Big ones are generally part of other companies. Most of them are small. And Most of them are well, Bad. a Few of them are good.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
And to some degree this makes sense. If you want an MSP model, you look for that. If you want broad support and someone that can help you with anything, this is the opposite of what you would do. I never said MSPs were bad, they are very good. But they don't fit every need.
Lots of companies don't want their vendors to be locked in to what their current products are. While that has benefits, it has huge negatives too. Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
Related, we post on our website that we are MS Certified professionals. But nothing about being an MS Partner, because we are not selling that stuff. We do have a partner subscription for other reasons (lab software mostly), but we do not sell anything.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Surely it's a form of marketing/accreditation for companies to recognise, ok if they are a Microsoft Gold Partner in Exchange, Server 2012, they probably have a clue about the Microsoft tech.
To some degree that is true, but NTG is an MS partner but we don't post that stuff because we are not an MSP and don't want to be seen that way. Getting those credentials is based on sales volume, not technical expertise, so while it may confuse customers to think you have those credentials it does not imply that. You are required to have some certs, but as we all know, if getting certs is the only requirement technically that means very little. Being a Gold partner literally only requires something like a single MCSE on staff. And while being an MCSE is nice, it doesn't imply that you have any experience and it means that the Gold cert means nothing more than that you hired one guy.
Many MSPs because of this have entry level staff get certs because they have the free time in order to get things like the Gold cert.
Related, we post on our website that we are MS Certified professionals. But nothing about being an MS Partner, because we are not selling that stuff. We do have a partner subscription for other reasons (lab software mostly), but we do not sell anything.
Gets you extra training too!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Most organisations already have a product that they need supporting, if I am looking for someone to look after my Cisco network, I'm going to look for the company with the Cisco partnerships and connections.
And to some degree this makes sense. If you want an MSP model, you look for that. If you want broad support and someone that can help you with anything, this is the opposite of what you would do. I never said MSPs were bad, they are very good. But they don't fit every need.
Lots of companies don't want their vendors to be locked in to what their current products are. While that has benefits, it has huge negatives too. Like you will likely have the MSP push you to overspend on Cisco and lock in further and further when doing something else might have saved you a fortune.
This is a huge one. MSPs are limited in their support scope, which often means they are limited in what they will recommend, or even can in good faith. So instead of getting an open opinion on what would be best for your company, you get the best solution company X can offer for your needs. See the difference?
