The "Official" Definition of Managed Services
Submitted by Charles Weaver on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 22:17
I have been watching a lot of pundits chattering on over the years about what the definition of managed services should be. Honestly, I think most of these definitions are pure guesswork and way off the mark, but that's beside the point. Many years ago I sat in a room with some very intelligent MSP executives and they spent an entire day debating the definition of managed services, and still never came up with a consistent definition. Oh well.
Despite these very smart professionals being unable to come to consensus, there was one common theme that all of them had in their definitions and that was the characteristic of being "Proactive". Their opinion was that whatever your definition, you cannot be a MSP if you are not proactive in your IT management. I couldn't agree more.
I would, therefore, like to coin the phrase (unless someone else out there has already done so) Reactive Service Provider (RSP). This definition can be applied to all those companies who are not yet delivering proactive IT services, for whatever reason. Whether by choice or inability, RSPs are a reality in our industry. They provide services to businesses that may not be ready for managed services, and that's a legitimate reason for me.
However, RSPs should not, under any circumstances, define the role of MSPs or in any way impact or influence the standards MSPs have been creating for themselves for the last 10 plus years.
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Upcoming Events
Get registered for our great events today!
Comments
Truly proactive
Most MSP offerings tout real-time monitoring and alerts. OK, but considering that alert notification occurs when a certain threshold is reached, invariably this means that someone is reacting to a situation. In my way of viewing things, alarm/response is NOT proactive.
I don't even consider real-time and proactive to be related. The practicalities of consuming real-time information is limited to only very specific mission-critical elements i.e. (system up/down etc). Real-time operational data, on the other hand, can vary so much that one's time can be literally consumed watching the details flow by. This isn't practical, efficient or cost-effective. I believe proactivity is a process by which dedicated operational personnel regularly monitor and review key internal controls, general policies and user activity versus waiting for certain events or metrics to trip. Consider a traffic condition operating just below alarm point. Waiting until the threshold could mean disruption. Identifying something before it hits one is "truly" empowered to take proactive action to correct the matter before is causes a problem. Technology tools are just that: they are tools. Management is a process. When a MSP Vendor brings their offering to the table, I'd be careful to explain the differences between real-time, proactive and reactive and describe how we're different and better because haven't these terms been beaten to death?
Re: Debating the definition of managed services
Hi Charles,
I do believe that I was at that meeting many moons ago. The reason that each provider had a different interpretation is that each had found way of providing a proactive service that their customers were willing to pay for. In order to provide a proactive service there needs to be a trust relationship established and that normally requires flexibility not handcuffs, one size definitely does not fit all in this relationship. Therefore I totally agree that the only commonality is in them all wanting to get paid for providing a proactive service. Getting paid on uptime not downtime puts us both on the same side of the table with our customers when constructing infrastructure. Maybe we should be called Proactive Service Providers PSPs!
Warmest regards
Rod Reed
www.thesupportstore.com
enterprise managed services
Thanks for the providing the such a useful article to us its really nice i would like to share few things on enterprise managed services expertise in manages services do for organization? – help manage your IT infrastructure without you losing control; Less complexity on managing and scalability; help ensure data availability and security; finally, a size able reduction in cost.
PSP
Good point Rod. Although, I think Sony might have some protection on the term PSP :)
xSP old Hat
Before the Dotcom bust in 2001 the industry had coined the xSP idea. We had Hosting Service Providers, Application Service Providers, Managed Service Providers, and so on.
I see the logic of separating Proactive and Reactive and agree that "Proactive" should be a part of any accredited MSP business model. Yet being able to react (and having proactively defined procedures to react) when things go wrong (because they always do) is a requirement to a holistic MSP business.
As you indicated, sometimes customers are so accustomed to the reactive model, which is really a kinder way of saying "break/fix" that it takes a hybrid model for them to ease into managed services. However, many mature MSP's have ramp models to bring these "show me" customers into a long-term relationship and eventually on a full MSP model.
Many MSPs would be foolish to turn away customers that weren't ready for managed services only to try and steal them away from a break fix shop with a management console and outsourced helpdesk later down the road.
In other words proactive is a must but do not exclude reactive in your definition.
Submitted by
Michael Backers
Reactive still required
Mike - I agree with your point. Many of our members do continue to provide their clients with "reactive" services. I do hear frequently, though, from those companies who have predominantly proactive clients, that taking on new reactive clients eventually becomes problematic.
I think the objective is to as quickly as possible reach the point in a managed services practice where the reactive client is less appealing and in opposition to the MSP's business model.
Good point though!
Reactive - No Thank You
Hi guys (and gals)
A view from the other side of the pond (UK) is that I reject all clients looking for a reactionary service. They do not make good clients, they take up too much of your time and long term they will cost you, not make you money.
My company (www.abussi.co.uk) has around 400 desktops and servers under management and the number of reactionary visits our team makes is less than 1 per month. Its probably around 1 per quarter. This makes our business model profitable; Our staff happy (no call outs at odd times of the day) and provides me as the Account Manager with a strong argument for our monthly fee's when we discuss increased productivity for the client and this leads us into becoming more of an IT consultant (shaping future direction) rather than just fixing what they have already.
Those who heard me speak at the April 08 MSP Conference in Atlanta will recall that MSP is the way forward (in my opinion) and reactive services are just not where the money is ;-)
Craig Sharp, CEO, Abussi Ltd
Conversion from Reactive to Proactive
We recently took on a customer who signed a 3 yr Managed Services contract. Even though they "bought in" to the idea of managed services, it has taken three months to settle in with this customer. Three months of "hot seat how fast can you react and prove your worth to me" behavior. This is common with first time MSP customers.Now, the customer understands that having us prove how fast we can react is no longer necessary - we have their trust because we showed a sense of urgency to their concerns. The key through the process, as Rod pointed out, is helping the customer understand that we are paid for uptime, not downtime and are on the same side of the table. What a revelation this customer has had!Submitted by:Mike Backers
Selling the Trusted Advisor Status
We have found that when a customer is not "sold" on the idea of having a partner and trusted advisor, then they see MSPs as traditional break fix IT. Additionally, we have found that ripping into a network and rebuilding what we can, even at a loss for the first few months is crucial to building a stable and profitable relationship. If we have a 2 year contract, then we try to get a client network stable on our terms in the first 90 days rather than reacting to their needs. We typically assign a consultant during this honeymoon phase who has a skill for client pampering. This makes the relationship less disruptive.
Reactivism...the forefater of Proactivism
No matter how you look at your business model, the reason we are being Proactive in service is still a reaction to a demand from clients. Whether the demand be at us or before us is not as important as the way we continue to react to the demand. The reason most first time clients out there have a hard time quantifying the value of managed services is because of the "Proactive" approach everyone is using in their marketing. You get a lot of this.. " I just don't know why we are paying so much every month if none of the systems are experiencing problems" This is where being too proactive from the get go can be detrimental to a business. Not always... just sometimes. You do your job too good in the beginning and you work yourself out of the job.
I think it's important to allow the service be a little more reactive in the beginning for first time clients. Once they see your performance and build a trust, you can take the training wheels off and be more proactive.
Baby steps, slow and steady,will help first time clients become life-long ones. I don't know one company that has started off as proactive company...
How many people have deployed an IT solution for the a problem that doesn't exist? I can't think of any off the top of my head. The reality is, we are a reactive industry in many people's eyes. Nothing wrong with that...your reaction time is your saviour. :)
Diab