question about IT budgets

[JM]

I don't know where else to ask this. Please let me know if there is a more
appropriate ng.

*In general* how much of a company's budget should go to IT?

For example, consider a small company with two locations, 150 employees (3
shifts), using approximately 50 computers. The company's approximate yearly
revenue is $2.5 million USD, or slightly over $210,000 USD per month.

Most of the needed expenditures are on MAC and general maintenance -
installing software, keeping anti-virus current on desktops and firewalls,
VPN, configuring the primary business software (users, features, updates,
add-ons, etc), cleaning up malware, adding devices, moving users,
configuring laptops, resetting passwords, wireless, PDAs,
monitoring/reporting internet usage, IM, etc.

I realize this is a huge question with tons of caveats and qualifiers, but
I'm just needing some general guidelines.

thank you,

jm

 

[Kurt]

I don't know where else to ask this. Please let me know if there is a more
appropriate ng.

*In general* how much of a company's budget should go to IT?

For example, consider a small company with two locations, 150 employees (3
shifts), using approximately 50 computers. The company's approximate yearly
revenue is $2.5 million USD, or slightly over $210,000 USD per month.

Most of the needed expenditures are on MAC and general maintenance -
installing software, keeping anti-virus current on desktops and firewalls,
VPN, configuring the primary business software (users, features, updates,
add-ons, etc), cleaning up malware, adding devices, moving users,
configuring laptops, resetting passwords, wireless, PDAs,
monitoring/reporting internet usage, IM, etc.

I realize this is a huge question with tons of caveats and qualifiers, but
I'm just needing some general guidelines.

thank you,

jm

Although there's no definitive answer to your question, I'd say the
general answer is "as little as possible without falling behind".
General maintenance is required, but you need to analyze what you are
spending your time maintaining and see if there's something that can be
done to slow the bleeding. Sometimes investing in some higher-end
networking and monitoring equipment/software will pay dividends in
lowered maintenance costs.

Keeping anti-virus current on desktops? This should be automated. And
you don't need Norton Corporate. Check out AVG Network edition. It'll
cost you less than 1/2 individual AV and no more manual updating.

Cleaning up malware? Sounds like you need some employee guidelines,
training and penalties. No iTunes. No casinos. No ebay (at work). No
filesharing. No Internet radio. No IM (except work related). No random
surfing. Business computers are for business only!

You need to look at the whole situation from the top down and start
mitigating your costs with the most costly item. Internet usage
monitoring/reporting can be done with PRTG. Or even something like
BandwidthD on a linux box (free!). If you have up-to-date reverse DNS
zones, bandwidthd will report by hostname, so you can go right from the
graph to the offending workstation. There are tons of relatively
inexpensive things that you can do to dramatically cut the IT payroll,
especially in the areas of maintenance, troubleshooting and reporting.
Last, but not least, for a small company, one good IT generalist can do
the work of 2 or more specialists. Someone who can keep the network
running, double at desktop support for software roll-outs, create a
quick web page, excel spreadsheet and do some programming, scripting.
One guy at $75,000 is way cheaper than 2.5 people at $50,000 each.

....kurt

 

[JM]

Although there's no definitive answer to your question, I'd say the
general answer is "as little as possible without falling behind". General
maintenance is required, but you need to analyze what you are spending
your time maintaining and see if there's something that can be done to
slow the bleeding. Sometimes investing in some higher-end networking and
monitoring equipment/software will pay dividends in lowered maintenance
costs.

Keeping anti-virus current on desktops? This should be automated. And you
don't need Norton Corporate. Check out AVG Network edition. It'll cost you
less than 1/2 individual AV and no more manual updating.

Cleaning up malware? Sounds like you need some employee guidelines,
training and penalties. No iTunes. No casinos. No ebay (at work). No
filesharing. No Internet radio. No IM (except work related). No random
surfing. Business computers are for business only!

You need to look at the whole situation from the top down and start
mitigating your costs with the most costly item. Internet usage
monitoring/reporting can be done with PRTG. Or even something like
BandwidthD on a linux box (free!). If you have up-to-date reverse DNS
zones, bandwidthd will report by hostname, so you can go right from the
graph to the offending workstation. There are tons of relatively
inexpensive things that you can do to dramatically cut the IT payroll,
especially in the areas of maintenance, troubleshooting and reporting.
Last, but not least, for a small company, one good IT generalist can do
the work of 2 or more specialists. Someone who can keep the network
running, double at desktop support for software roll-outs, create a quick
web page, excel spreadsheet and do some programming, scripting. One guy at
$75,000 is way cheaper than 2.5 people at $50,000 each.

...kurt

Excellent response, thank you. And you hit on all the keynotes. There is
so much more to this story than I could get into here, but your answer
mirrors and reinforces the larger view I've taken - a view I'm desperately
trying to get the business owners to share.

See, I am that "IT generalist" you mentioned. I personally perform all the
tasks you and I mentioned and many others. I am coming into this situation
way behind, as this particular network was created and maintained by a local
data services company over a period of 7 years. You would laugh (or shake
your head in disbelief) if I mentioned everything I've encountered. (As one
example: when I arrived, every user in each office shared a common domain
username and password. As another example: There IS NO centralized,
company-wide anti-virus or anti-malware. And for one more: There IS NO
acceptable use policy. Over the past 48 hours there have been 425
myspace.com hits, according to the Sonicwall reports - a feature that I
enabled for the first time in the company's history). BTW, they are using
the Sonicwall SOHO firewalls - a decent appliance, but not feature-rich
enough to provide the kind of data we need, especially considering there is
no suite of other tools taking up the slack or filling in the blanks. And I
appreciate your input on that issue, as well.

I want to help this company. I really do. And I have the capabilities and
vision to do it. However, I cannot get Management buy-in. That's why I
came here and asked for some perspective regarding IT budgets. I absolulely
must get the company owners to understand that $3k per month for a 6-month
plan is by no means unreasonable, considering they have no staff IT
personnel and that their network is in shambles from years of neglect and
poor decisions. It's roughly 2.5% of their revenue, which in my experience
is cheap, especially since I can show on paper the ROI on both hard and soft
costs.

This is one incredible situation.

jm

 

[Enkidu]

I want to help this company. I really do. And I have the
capabilities and vision to do it. However, I cannot get Management
buy-in. That's why I came here and asked for some perspective
regarding IT budgets. I absolulely must get the company owners to
understand that $3k per month for a 6-month plan is by no means
unreasonable, considering they have no staff IT personnel and that
their network is in shambles from years of neglect and poor
decisions. It's roughly 2.5% of their revenue, which in my
experience is cheap, especially since I can show on paper the ROI on
both hard and soft costs.

This is one incredible situation.

Run as hard and as fast as you can. If you can't get management buy in,
shift somewhere else. There is no future in it, and when it breaks it
will be YOUR fault (in the eyes of management).

Well, that's my advice, anyway.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[Kurt]

Run as hard and as fast as you can. If you can't get management buy in,
shift somewhere else. There is no future in it, and when it breaks it
will be YOUR fault (in the eyes of management).

Well, that's my advice, anyway.

Cheers,

Cliff

While my brain screams, "Cliff is right!", I also enjoy a good
challenge. One thing Cliff is absolutely right about is convincing them
to PAY you what you're WORTH. Your task, should you choose to accept it,
is to convince them that spending a few extra bucks over the next couple
of years will ultimately provide a positive ROI. One of my favorite
things to do is to bring the boss over to some employee's 1998 vintage
computer and have the employee do something that they do all day long as
a part of their job. Then we wait...and wait...and wait for the computer
to finally load the app, the data, and display it for us. Then I ask
them how many hours a week they think they are paying that employee to
wait for the computer! Many times they could buy a new computer and have
it paid for in 3 months. After that, the new computer is making them money.

I know what it's like to follow behind a contractor that put together a
company's network with equipment purchased at Staples, computers from
some on-line garage/basement assembler using the cheapest of parts, and
2003 SBS with the full out-of-the-box install even though they don't use
Exchange or SQL. But also remember that the contractor that set it up
probably did it that way because the company wouldn't pay them to do it
right (OK, maybe they didn't know how to do it right). Give them a good
estimate on what it will take to fix it. Allow some headroom for things
that go sour. List EVERYTHING you are going to do. Put in a page for
them to fill out additional things they want you to do and have them
SIGN IT. Then revise your estimate for the additions, and make it clear,
both verbally and in writing, that your estimate ONLY covers the things
LISTED IN THE ESTIMATE! Oh, yeah - get their signature on the revised
estimate.

Good luck,

....kurt

 

[PeterD]

I don't know where else to ask this. Please let me know if there is a more
appropriate ng.

*In general* how much of a company's budget should go to IT?

For example, consider a small company with two locations, 150 employees (3
shifts), using approximately 50 computers. The company's approximate yearly
revenue is $2.5 million USD, or slightly over $210,000 USD per month.

150 employees, 2,500,000 revenue (gross?) is 16K/employee. In that
case the IT budget should be just about zero... if the 2,500,000 is
net profit, then other numbers apply.

The bottom line is that there is no rule of thumb for this. Every
company is different, and no company that is not an information
technology related company spends more on IT than is necessary.

I'd say with 50 computers, you are talking one or maybe two employees
in IT, figure 50K for the first, and 37K for the second if there is
one. Add to that the costs of whatever software/hardware the company
buys.

 

[PeterD]

I cannot get Management buy-in.

You've answered your own question. There is little hope you can create
a successful IT infrastructure without your management's backing.
Correction, there is *NO* hope...

In my years of consulting I've seen this situation a number of times.
Generally either you must adapt to the company and their methods, or
more on. I recommend the latter--if the company is as mis-managed as
you suggest, it is likely that they will not be around in the long
term.

 

[PeterD]

While my brain screams, "Cliff is right!", I also enjoy a good
challenge.

Like... the challenge of jumping off the fourth floor roof and hitting
the ground just right so you are not hurt? <bg>

Challenges are one thing, but there are limits. Cliff is right, so is
your brain, so am I, and so are many of the others here who shake
their heads in agreement but don't bother to post a reply.

There are jsut some situations where you can't win... As the song
says:

“Know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away,
and know when to run.”

 

[JM]

150 employees, 2,500,000 revenue (gross?) is 16K/employee. In that
case the IT budget should be just about zero... if the 2,500,000 is
net profit, then other numbers apply.

The bottom line is that there is no rule of thumb for this. Every
company is different, and no company that is not an information
technology related company spends more on IT than is necessary.

I'd say with 50 computers, you are talking one or maybe two employees
in IT, figure 50K for the first, and 37K for the second if there is
one. Add to that the costs of whatever software/hardware the company
buys.

Okay, excellent. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The key point here
is that this company has no internal IT staff. I run a small data
services/telecom company. I and my staff come in and help smb's who cannot
afford their own personnel. The vast majority of my clients understand that
in general its cheaper to pay outside help for a small network, rather than
trying to maintain their own people. Therefore, they usually see our
services as necessary expense, and they consider themselves fortunate to be
able to do things this way.

However, the client in question cannot see the point you made: Namely, that
by the time most businesses achieve their stage of growth (multiple
locations, 150 employess), they must bear the expense of an internal IT
department, which means at least one person and an organized, funded IT
effort. Therefore, my challenge is to make them see how reasonable my
proposal is. It's a fraction of what it would cost to maintain *qualified*
internal IT personnel.

And here's the other big factor: They will pay me all day to band-aid the
problems. So I cannot ignore that this pathetic network is a revenue
source. In that regard, the relationship is a valuable part of my
business.

Don't misunderstand that. The much larger concern for me is that I want to
fundamentally correct the problems. I want to make a shitty network a great
one, and I want to contribute to the success of this company - and all my
clients. That's not a slogan. It's the truth. It's why I got into this in
the first place: To help businesses turn their tech infrastructure into a
productive vehicle for doing more business, better business, and making more
money.

And my little company has a lot of pride. We want to do a great job. Every
day we ask ourselves, "If another data company came in and checked our work,
what grade would they give us?" Our mission is A+.

jm

 

[Enkidu]

Okay, excellent. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The key point
here is that this company has no internal IT staff. I run a small
data services/telecom company. I and my staff come in and help smb's
who cannot afford their own personnel. The vast majority of my
clients understand that in general its cheaper to pay outside help
for a small network, rather than trying to maintain their own people.
Therefore, they usually see our services as necessary expense, and
they consider themselves fortunate to be able to do things this way.

However, the client in question cannot see the point you made:
Namely, that by the time most businesses achieve their stage of
growth (multiple locations, 150 employess), they must bear the
expense of an internal IT department, which means at least one person
and an organized, funded IT effort. Therefore, my challenge is to
make them see how reasonable my proposal is. It's a fraction of what
it would cost to maintain *qualified* internal IT personnel.

I can't see how it can be cheaper for a small organisation. For a large
one, yes, outsourcing support makes sense.

With outsourcers asking anything around $700/day that's $175,000 per
year which will easily pay for two IT staff and allow quite a bit for
equipment upgrades and so on. And that's without factoring in MACs which
will add a few hundred dollars per machine.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[PeterD]

I can't see how it can be cheaper for a small organisation. For a large
one, yes, outsourcing support makes sense.

With outsourcers asking anything around $700/day that's $175,000 per
year which will easily pay for two IT staff and allow quite a bit for
equipment upgrades and so on. And that's without factoring in MACs which
will add a few hundred dollars per machine.

Cheers,

Cliff

JM's reply didn't make it to my NNTP server, so to both... <g>

When I do consulting, I charge between $121 and $155 per hour. I
explain to the customer that a person of my skills who is an employee
might be making $xxx a year, and suggest they do the math. Sometimes
they realize that it's cheaper to go inhouse. Often they figure that
even though they pay me more, they have the option of saying "good
bye" at any time, and not have any regrets.

 

[Kurt]

Okay, excellent. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The key point here
is that this company has no internal IT staff. I run a small data
services/telecom company. I and my staff come in and help smb's who cannot
afford their own personnel. The vast majority of my clients understand that
in general its cheaper to pay outside help for a small network, rather than
trying to maintain their own people. Therefore, they usually see our
services as necessary expense, and they consider themselves fortunate to be
able to do things this way.

However, the client in question cannot see the point you made: Namely, that
by the time most businesses achieve their stage of growth (multiple
locations, 150 employess), they must bear the expense of an internal IT
department, which means at least one person and an organized, funded IT
effort. Therefore, my challenge is to make them see how reasonable my
proposal is. It's a fraction of what it would cost to maintain *qualified*
internal IT personnel.

And here's the other big factor: They will pay me all day to band-aid the
problems. So I cannot ignore that this pathetic network is a revenue
source. In that regard, the relationship is a valuable part of my
business.

Don't misunderstand that. The much larger concern for me is that I want to
fundamentally correct the problems. I want to make a shitty network a great
one, and I want to contribute to the success of this company - and all my
clients. That's not a slogan. It's the truth. It's why I got into this in
the first place: To help businesses turn their tech infrastructure into a
productive vehicle for doing more business, better business, and making more
money.

And my little company has a lot of pride. We want to do a great job. Every
day we ask ourselves, "If another data company came in and checked our work,
what grade would they give us?" Our mission is A+.

jm

One of my company's main line of business is providing outsourced
network / helpdesk / consulting to SMBs. The math at this point, is
fairly straighforward. What is their annual consulting bill vs. What
would the TCO be for a full-time IT staffer. We endeavour to show that
it's cheaper to keep us around (since that's what provides the basis for
the paychecks) rather than go in-house. If you're looking to dump this
client, you can take a shot at reasoning with them that the reverse is
true. If they won't listen to reason, let you'll just have to let them
know that you can no longer have your good name attached to the
nightmare that their network has become.

...

 

[JM]

I can't see how it can be cheaper for a small organisation. For a large
one, yes, outsourcing support makes sense.

With outsourcers asking anything around $700/day that's $175,000 per year
which will easily pay for two IT staff and allow quite a bit for equipment
upgrades and so on. And that's without factoring in MACs which will add a
few hundred dollars per machine.

Cheers,

Cliff

I definately see your point, but you are missing a huge truth regarding tech
needs of SMBs, namely that they do not need daily work on their network.
Our goal is to come in a make short work of getting the network on its feet,
empower a couple of key internal people to handle the basics of routine
management (install programs, backup data, update Windows, t'shoot wireless
connectivity problems, etc), establish a solid relationship, and then come
back as needed. And we offer a remote support option that can drastically
cut down on trips to site. It's been my experience that once you've laid a
solid foundation for, say, a 25 computer network, our services are needed
only about once per week, and the average billable service call is 3 hours.
Factor that by any reasonable billable rate, and you've got a total cost
that is vastly lower than the total cost of even one qualified staff
technician.

Keep in mind that these are not complex networks. Often they are 1-2
locations, 1-2 Windows servers, 10-50 computers, a wireless router/AP, some
type of core business software, 3-5 remote workers, basic VPN/TS, etc.
Dedicated IT personnel would be way overkill.

jm

 

[JM]

While my brain screams, "Cliff is right!", I also enjoy a good challenge.
One thing Cliff is absolutely right about is convincing them to PAY you
what you're WORTH. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to
convince them that spending a few extra bucks over the next couple of
years will ultimately provide a positive ROI. One of my favorite things to
do is to bring the boss over to some employee's 1998 vintage computer and
have the employee do something that they do all day long as a part of
their job. Then we wait...and wait...and wait for the computer to finally
load the app, the data, and display it for us. Then I ask them how many
hours a week they think they are paying that employee to wait for the
computer! Many times they could buy a new computer and have it paid for in
3 months. After that, the new computer is making them money.

I know what it's like to follow behind a contractor that put together a
company's network with equipment purchased at Staples, computers from some
on-line garage/basement assembler using the cheapest of parts, and 2003
SBS with the full out-of-the-box install even though they don't use
Exchange or SQL. But also remember that the contractor that set it up
probably did it that way because the company wouldn't pay them to do it
right (OK, maybe they didn't know how to do it right). Give them a good
estimate on what it will take to fix it. Allow some headroom for things
that go sour. List EVERYTHING you are going to do. Put in a page for them
to fill out additional things they want you to do and have them SIGN IT.
Then revise your estimate for the additions, and make it clear, both
verbally and in writing, that your estimate ONLY covers the things LISTED
IN THE ESTIMATE! Oh, yeah - get their signature on the revised estimate.

Good luck,

...kurt

Lots to think about there, thank you.

This is important to me - so much so that I'm sitting here on my New Year's
weekend writing, reading, pondering, strategizing, etc. Basically, I share
your affinity for a challenge, and while I am giving a lot of consideration
to the other posters' advice to get out while the gettin's good, I have to
admit that my gut is telling me I can succeed here.

This client is the supreme example of what all of us know to be true: If we
could eliminate irresponsible use of the INTERNET from the business
environment, our jobs would be infinitely less complicated. So after much
reflection, I've decided to focus my "sales pitch" on that issue. We all
know that a bunch of computers connected via decent-quality network
equipment, with Server 2000/2003, with updated XP installations, established
on a solid foundation will work pretty well. It's when you introduce
malware and all the devices/software aimed at combating malware that things
get messed up - at least on the scale of networks we target.

So my proposal will focus on a good AUP, good firewalls, network-wide
server-based AV, Windows upgrades/updates, etc. Then we will move on to the
other stuff.

jm

 

[Enkidu]

I definately see your point, but you are missing a huge truth regarding tech
needs of SMBs, namely that they do not need daily work on their network.
Our goal is to come in a make short work of getting the network on its feet,
empower a couple of key internal people to handle the basics of routine
management (install programs, backup data, update Windows, t'shoot wireless
connectivity problems, etc), establish a solid relationship, and then come
back as needed. And we offer a remote support option that can drastically
cut down on trips to site. It's been my experience that once you've laid a
solid foundation for, say, a 25 computer network, our services are needed
only about once per week, and the average billable service call is 3 hours.
Factor that by any reasonable billable rate, and you've got a total cost
that is vastly lower than the total cost of even one qualified staff
technician.

Keep in mind that these are not complex networks. Often they are 1-2
locations, 1-2 Windows servers, 10-50 computers, a wireless router/AP, some
type of core business software, 3-5 remote workers, basic VPN/TS, etc.
Dedicated IT personnel would be way overkill.

I just realised what a can of worms I opened here! I'll reply, but I'm
not going to keep following up - you are certain to disagree with some
of my points below, but there is no point in a flame war or endless
discussion is there? So I'll just make my points and let it be.

Firstly "empower(ing) a couple of key internal people" is another way of
saying "distribute some the IT function across existing staff". The cost
of the time of these "key internal people" has to be figured in as is
also the cost of taking them away (for an hour or two at a time) from
their *real* work. Especially if they have to do thing like "t'shoot
wireless connectivity problems" and similar.

Secondly, it is my experience that such 'part-time' IT staff rarely
perform their IT roles well. I recall one place that I worked where the
person who looked after the backups insisted on calling the DAT tape a
"floppy drive"! Another place the person involved was religiously
putting the tape in and religiously off-siting it. The trouble was all
the backups were failing and all the tapes were blank. Let's not go into
the problems raised when a user is given the authority to install
software on machines. Suffice it to say, keeping such machines secure
and ensuring that all software has licenses is impossible!

Then, excuse me but it is true, there are the problems with the
outsource service provider. These range from reluctance to come for a
problem except at the standard times when a problem arises, through an
insufficient knowledge of the customer's IT capabilities and needs, and
up to the failure to establish a consistent IT policy across all visits.
What I mean by this last is that consultant A from the support firm does
things one way, and consultant B does things another way. This either
means that consultant B reworks what consultant A has done or that two
machines, side by side, may be set up differently, which makes life
difficult for the local IT support. I seen this many, many times.

Again, forgive me, but there appear to be cowboy outfits out there who I
would not trust to manage a box of coloured pencils. If you read the
newsgroups, there are constantly requests from people who want help with
sorting out the messes which the cowboys have left behind. I'm sure that
the majority are NOT cowboys, but unfortunately the cowboys seem fairly
common, and the small firm employing an outsourcer takes a huge risk.

Lastly and finally, even a small outfit of around 20 - 50 workstations
or laptops plus a handle full of servers can justify an IT person.
That's how I started out in small org systems administration. I was
*always* busy. Did *everything* from cabling the building through
liaising with the telco, through running the mail server and keeping all
the machines up to date and seeing that the backups worked. (Admittedly
you might get a dud, employing a relative beginner, but you might also
get a dud outsourcer). The IT person is a cost, but it's the cost of
doing business, same as the cost of a phone line, or the cost of a
photocopier, or a receptionist. Just as it doesn't always make sense to
own a photocopier, it doesn't always make sense to employ your own IT
staff.

But it often makes sense to purchase a MFC device and it often makes
sense to employ a flexible technical person.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your comments, but in the interests of
bandwidth and keeping it things cool and friendly, I'll not reply.

Cheers,

Cliff

 

[JM]

I just realised what a can of worms I opened here! I'll reply, but I'm not
going to keep following up - you are certain to disagree with some of my
points below, but there is no point in a flame war or endless discussion
is there? So I'll just make my points and let it be.

No, it's by no means a "can of worms." It's a friendly debate. I don't
come here for validation of my point. I come here for the honest, open
exchange of ideas, perspectives, and experience. I value your input.
Please don't think that because I disagree that I'm not taking value from
your posts. To the contrary: Even when I argue the point, I'm looking for
new information. Please don't stop now. This is just getting good!

Firstly "empower(ing) a couple of key internal people" is another way of
saying "distribute some the IT function across existing staff". The cost
of the time of these "key internal people" has to be figured in as is also
the cost of taking them away (for an hour or two at a time) from their
*real* work. Especially if they have to do thing like "t'shoot wireless
connectivity problems" and similar.

That is an outstanding point. Now, granted, I stated it more starkly in my
post than it usually works out. Actually, it's rare that this "empowerment"
results in these "key people" doing the job themselves. Usually, they
become our contact points for remote work or the person we answer questions
for in the most routine situations.

However, you just gave me a lot to think about in that regard.

Secondly, it is my experience that such 'part-time' IT staff rarely
perform their IT roles well. I recall one place that I worked where the
person who looked after the backups insisted on calling the DAT tape a
"floppy drive"! Another place the person involved was religiously putting
the tape in and religiously off-siting it. The trouble was all the backups
were failing and all the tapes were blank. Let's not go into the problems
raised when a user is given the authority to install software on machines.
Suffice it to say, keeping such machines secure and ensuring that all
software has licenses is impossible!

Again, excellent point, and it's a reality we keep in sharp focus.

Then, excuse me but it is true, there are the problems with the
outsource service provider. These range from reluctance to come for a
problem except at the standard times when a problem arises, through an
insufficient knowledge of the customer's IT capabilities and needs, and up
to the failure to establish a consistent IT policy across all visits. What
I mean by this last is that consultant A from the support firm does things
one way, and consultant B does things another way. This either means that
consultant B reworks what consultant A has done or that two machines, side
by side, may be set up differently, which makes life difficult for the
local IT support. I seen this many, many times.

Again, forgive me, but there appear to be cowboy outfits out there who I
would not trust to manage a box of coloured pencils. If you read the
newsgroups, there are constantly requests from people who want help with
sorting out the messes which the cowboys have left behind. I'm sure that
the majority are NOT cowboys, but unfortunately the cowboys seem fairly
common, and the small firm employing an outsourcer takes a huge risk.

I couldn't agree more, and it's the very reason my company exists and have
more work than we can do. We understand that the market is flooded with
"cowboys," and we are determined to be different. Prior to running my own
company, I was over operations for a much larger company. I've been in
service industries for years. I know exactly what you're talking about.
But my mission is to get as close to being the "real thing" (i.e., internal
IT staff) as possible, while also bringing something very valuable from the
outside: the cumulative experience and knowledge gained from watching how
hundreds of other companies do things.

Lastly and finally, even a small outfit of around 20 - 50 workstations or
laptops plus a handle full of servers can justify an IT person. That's how
I started out in small org systems administration. I was *always* busy.
Did *everything* from cabling the building through liaising with the
telco, through running the mail server and keeping all the machines up to
date and seeing that the backups worked. (Admittedly you might get a dud,
employing a relative beginner, but you might also get a dud outsourcer).
The IT person is a cost, but it's the cost of doing business, same as the
cost of a phone line, or the cost of a photocopier, or a receptionist.
Just as it doesn't always make sense to own a photocopier, it doesn't
always make sense to employ your own IT staff.

But it often makes sense to purchase a MFC device and it often makes sense
to employ a flexible technical person.

Once again, I do not disagree with your core point. But, keep in mind,
you're discussing the issue with someone who believes very, very much in the
value of outsourced IT services. In fact, my intent was never to debate
whether or not my chosen profession or the company that bears my name is
worthwhile. Regardless of how "right" or "wrong" these "small outfits" are,
the reality is that many of them do not have internal IT people. We provide
that role for them.

And it's also a matter of scale and degree. By all means, by the time you
approach 50 computers (or even 30-40), internal staff is something to
consider. But, again, that's not my concern. It's hardly part of my
business approach to tell people they'd be better off without me ; ))

Anyway, I'd be interested in your comments, but in the interests of
bandwidth and keeping it things cool and friendly, I'll not reply.

As far as I'm concerned, things are as cool and friendly as can be, and I
hardly think we're robbing anybody of any significant bandwidth.

jm

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In JM <[email protected]> stated, which I commented on below:

So my proposal will focus on a good AUP, good firewalls, network-wide
server-based AV, Windows upgrades/updates, etc. Then we will move on
to the other stuff.

jm

And sometimes you just have to hit them square between the eyes and tell
them this is the way it must be to insure a properly run infrastructure and
support their business needs. IT may be a non-tangential aspect to a budget,
because they really can't put a finger on what costs what, why and where,
but it is a necessity. Selling yourself is a huge factor too, for you have
to gain their trust. If they can't swallow what is required, or take the
punches, and may settle for little bits here and there just to save a buck
or two now, then you are geared for more problems down the line with this
customer.

--
Ace
Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
Willow Grove, PA

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject.
It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
"Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."

The only constant in life is change...