« Back to the top page
Larry Borsato

Running a company using outsourced IT services

Larry Borsato03.26.2008
Categories
Comments 3

In the early 1990s, I was an IT manager in a medium-sized company of about 1,500 employees. Running this business required a substantial IT investment. Everyone needed computers and Microsoft Office licenses ($300 each, as I recall) for every desktop, regardless of how frequently it would be used. Expensive servers, storage appliances, and network components supported our IT infrastructure. We had to perform regular backups, and create disaster recovery procedures. Our developers had to design and build custom software, such as customer relationship management applications. And while we didn't need an Internet connection, we did have to pay a high price for network connections to international offices.

And, of course, there was a sizable IT staff -- numbering about 30 people -- on hand to perform the voodoo necessary to keep everything running.

Imagine you are an IT manager in 2008. Internet connections to the office are a given. So are PCs and some networking equipment. Once these purchases have been made, you're ready to do business.

Wait a second. Aren't a few things missing from this list? What about Microsoft Office, the storage gear, and the huge support staff?

No, nothing is missing. Your company just outsourced most of its IT. Google Docs or Zoho lets employees create documents online. The tools are free, and online sharing and collaboration are easy. IDrive serves as a low-cost alternative for online business backups, and even individual desktop backups. Salesforce.com takes care of CRM-related needs. Thousands of other productivity and communication tools can be downloaded for free, or for a negligible cost, on an as-needed basis. Amazon's EC2 and S3 services provide raw computing power and mass storage resources as the company grows. Multinational office support is inherent in tools that are accessed via the Internet.

And while it wasn't uncommon 15 years ago to have a majority of IT staff time dedicated to maintaining servers, backups, and disaster recovery, nowadays SMBs can get by with a smaller IT staff who, largely freed from such concerns, can now provide better customer service.

I estimate that per-employee IT costs today would be about 75% lower than what I experienced in the early 1990s. If you could stand up in a management meeting and say that you had cut costs by 75%, a celebration would be in order, not to mention a large bonus.

But there's more at stake than costs. Consider the other issues that must be taken into account when vetting outsourced services. Which services should be outsourced, and what should remain in-house? How will all of the pieces work together? It may be great handing off primary backups to an online storage service, but plans still need to be made for 'Net or power outages, or when individual services go offline.

There are also some undeniable downsides to taking the outsourced route. Information is the lifeblood of most businesses today, and security is paramount -- no company wants customer lists, email, or other mission-critical data open to the Internet. Protecting data is critical, and companies need to understand where to draw the line. Someone needs to have a handle on all of the company's applications and data, figure out what data is stored and maintained in-house, and determine how encryption might be applied to particularly sensitive data -- in other words, he or she has to create and implement best practices that enhance the flows of information without compromising it.

So, even though the technology has evolved and the tools are new, the basic IT management role hasn't really changed. The company still needs someone to accept responsibility for technology decisions in support of the company's business goals. Still, technology has altered the character of that role. Without the costly burdens associated with servicing the technology, today's IT manager now has more freedom to do what they've always tried to do -- service the customers with a better array of tools to improve their productivity and work lives.


Comments

For all online backup, file sharing and storage related info, I recommend this website:

http://www.BackupReview.info


Larry,

You bring out several valid points about outsourcing IT for SMB organizations.

However, if an SMB is looking to outsource its existing IT support, in whole or in part, they will need to completely re-assess their expectations, needs, finances, security and business support goals. Similar to hiring consultants or contractors for a business or IT effort, the firm needs to consider all the benefits and detractors to this option.

As just two example, lets consider support and security expectations.

For a growing SMB, their stereotypical business creativity and speed to market are expected to be played out and supported by their IT support team. An inhouse IT team can provide that level of dedication at a known cost: salary + benefits + late night pizza & RedBull. An outsourced IT support team, however, will enact SLAs and escalation policies, and higher hourly costs.

On the other hand, what inhouse IT staff tends to offer in dedication and flexibility they give up in scalability, and vice versa for outsourced IT.

Related, inhouse IT staff can make business-oriented exceptions to security guidelines more readily than an outsourced IT team. The former can make decisions and offer more creative solutions in shorter timelines because they are solely focused on their business' needs. An outsourced team, however, must always meet the minimums of and deliver towards the ideals of their contracts and SLAs. Further, the firm needs to implement more, not less, security oversight by internal IT management, for compliance requirements to "watch the watcher".

In short, an SMB considering outsourcing their IT support needs to be sure to include in their analysis the impact to their own bottom line when inserting another firm's bottom line into their own processes. Will the theoretical benefits of outsourced IT's depth and breadth play out in real world delivery? Are the cost discounts and failovers in place to balance an outsourced IT's missteps and failures sufficient to overcome their greater costs? Are their efficiencies in scale greater than their lost efficiencies of shared resources?

Mark Cummuta
CIO


Mark,

You make some excellent points. In truth I can't see an existing SMB suddenly switching en masse to outsourcing, though they may opt to try a few things.

What I'm seeing currently is smaller companies, and especially startups, initially using services such as Amazon's EC2 and S3, as well as Google Docs and similar tools for virtually all of their IT needs. They are also using a mix of machines; Windows, Mac, and Linux. As they grow they continue to use what they have become comfortable with. I have friends in Web 2.0 startups that don't own a single server.

As they grow the company then eventually flesh out an in-house IT support team and bring some things in as necessary, but nowhere near the old days of all IT in the building.

I am also not recommending an outsourced IT team. I am merely pointing out that by using outsourced services - cloud computing and the like - fewer IT staff are required to maintain the back office servers and technology. As for SLAs, I believe that these services are capable of providing the same level of service as my staff was back in the day. And they are beginning to sell actual SLAs for those companies that require them.

Companies will continue to need in-house IT staff, both for oversight and to ensure that the company isn't just receiving the minimum requirements. That staff will need to evaluate the outsourced services to determine if the company is getting the best value, and if not make changes.

I believe that costs will decrease, if only in the number of licenses of Microsoft Office you buy, though as the saying goes, your mileage may vary. There is simply the potential to use these available tools if you decide that they will do a better job for you. And there may be a breakeven point in company size where these economies of scale no longer apply; where it is cheaper or more efficient for the company to do it itself.

I believe that there are options here for some companies to cut their costs balanced against the potential risks of doing so. That won't be true for every company.

Thanks for your comments!

- Larry


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Respectful debate is welcome, but comments that are defamatory, indecent, abusive, or in violation of any law will be removed.