When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator
-
@scottalanmiller I probably worded my statement poorly, and by the way I have worked in Enterprise. Enterprise might prize and value creativity, but it's because it's very difficult to effect in an Enterprise environment. When was a rollout at the Enterprise level anywhere remotely as fast or as simple as in an SMB? Value is directly related to scarcity. Practical creativity in the Enterprise is difficult to achieve, because it's increasingly more difficult to implement the larger the scale gets.
When SMBs don't value creativity, it's most often because either they already enact plenty of it, or they're just dumb (both are more likely in that space than in the Enterprise).
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller How do you advance from doing everything?
This is literally the argument of how you advance from SMB IT to MSP IT. You cannot advance from doing everything, while as MSP IT, you will never do that, therefor there is a logical path for advancement.So the advancement from SMB is into the MSP space? I mean, sort of. But MSPs have entry points, too. SMB isn't "below" MSP, it is just less efficient.
MSP isn't really its own thing, it's really just an isolated large business IT department. So shares characteristics with large business IT departments naturally.
Doing "everything" means you are not able to focus on the high level work. As long as someone is stuck doing everything they are trapped with at least one foot at the entry level and much of their time spent context switching.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
When SMBs don't value creativity, it's most often because either they already enact plenty of it, or they're just dumb (both are more likely in that space than in the Enterprise).
Granted. SMBs have a bigger dynamic range of everything. That is very true. Enterprises have a mediating effect.
-
Some examples of where big enterprises use big time creativity for huge tech gains, though, include companies like IBM, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, the Wall St Investment Banks (not consumer banks), Hedge Funds, big oil and so forth. These are huge, huge entities that "dance". Creativity drives them and they really do respond.
I was a senior manager at IBM and let me tell you, that is a company that can freaking dance. Propose a wild and crazy project and you might have a new team the same day. I got into IT because of a Fortune 20 taking on a dare to reinvent how they thought of the database space.
-
Literal conversation at IBM in 2000: "So we are talking about doing this software development project, I'll need resources to do that as I don't have that on my team today. There is a guy I've worked with a lot over the last few years that is local, really good and available that I'd like to bring on."
"Oh okay, that sounds good. Get me a resume and stuff and we'll talk about it."
"Well, he is available now. I'd hate to have him get snatched up by someone else while we were looking things over and considering the project."
"Right, makes sense, have him here Monday."
Actual IBM conversation. Hired a 10x developer on that one sentence and kicked off a project that reinvented how IBM did their large system manufacturing bringing all outside software in house.
-
@scottalanmiller I guess my take is that it's a little naïve to suggest the idea that an organizational system designed for big businesses is a good idea for small ones. It's inefficient to have a zillion specialists to do generalist tasks. Sure, scripting helps with grunt work... but generalists can get a whole lot of the same scripts for free just as easily as the specialists can. Both are necessary at some level in some circumstances, but I feel like generalists consistently get the shaft by specialists who seem to think they're somehow superior because of their specialization. A generalist could also be a considered someone who specializes in knowing some things about a LOT of disparate things. If you're planning a build, I'de MUCH prefer consulting a generalist for much of the design, and then specialists for tweaking each area; versus consulting a bunch of specialists and finding out come post-deployment, every individual segment of the system rocks while the whole system is ultimately almost unworkable. (seen it happen too many times to want to remember)
It seems to me, that the biggest benefit to MSPs is just that they have the capacity to manage at greater scale and level of efficiency.. but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can or will manage small-scale organizations in large numbers any better, or any cheaper than internal IT can for them individually. In case that wording sucks, Just because in theory, an MSP should be able to manage lots of small environments very well doesn't mean they will actually do so better than an internal IT staff can do for potentially less cost. MSPs start losing efficiency just as Enterprises do, when you introduce increasing levels of complexity, which requires more specialists, which drives up costs for everyone. There may eventually come a point where it's just not cost effective for many SMBs at that point to employ the MSPs available to them, and so hire Internal IT instead. MSPs can and should do it all better and cheaper in theory, but I'm not so sure that bears out in reality, which is ultimately all that really matters, right?
Also, don't get me wrong, there are always exceptions to the rules. I also realize that we are both probably among them in many ways, which is totally fine.
-
For what it's worth, I do believe that an IT department of 1 is rarely ever the best solution. If an SMB hires internal IT, it should be because it's the best solution for their organization, and it needs to be enough IT capability to actually manage and operate their environment well. I like the enormous flexibility my current SMB environment affords me, to the point where I'm waiting on certain software vendors to make their solutions available for me to deploy... something I would have either had to create some complicated 3rd-party solution for at a likely steep cost, or would not be able to deploy for months or even years from now in any other setting.
Enterprise might get things sooner, but my deployment will be ultra-simple to deploy and manage; and I'll in many ways have comparable security to many much larger organizations, and far sooner than most other organizations of our size or type for quite some time. I can be an early adopter without having to invent the whole thing so to speak, which is fantastic for me.. and something I would likely never get to do in an Enterprise, and not for likely a year or two in an MSP. Granted, this is because I've built up a high level of trust with both my boss, and our board.. so I can do virtually anything I want with some reasonable justification. I've inquired at the MSPs in the area, and I'm where I am because none of them offer me anything remotely similar to what I have now, and some have even contacted me for consulting at times.
-
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 One thing that I have been able to do is market myself here. Every time we have reviews, they give me x% of a raise and know that I am going to negotiate more. Only once did I not get what I asked for (this was at 90 days on the job) but I did get more than I had been given.
When dealing with people that manage you and don't have the first clue as to what you do, you have to make sure that they know, you know what you are doing and that you are doing a lot of it. The key is that you overwhelm them with the results of what you have been working on. Results aren't always as tangible. For instance, one of the first things I went through were the GPOs. I spent hours and hours looking at what was in place and went through and re did them. I printed out a copy of the domain-wide GPO and it was quite thick. Then I printed out Visio diagrams of the network infrastructure that I had mapped and revised. Then I was able to compile a list of accomplishments for the previous year and projects that I was currently working on or would be working on the next year. Each year I check them off and add more for the next.
You have to show them things in ways that they understand. Most of the time, it is printed on paper. Now I just stick to the accomplishments and projects lists and save the paper because they know the quality and volume of work that I do for them.
I've done this. It comes down to what they believe. One of my bosses said "We haven't had any issues. do we even need IT?" Not kidding. I even explained for over an hour, everything that I did to make that happen and she just chose not to believe me.
Well, in that case, you need to move on. They won't realize what they had until you are gone. I came here at a great time. After a list of people that didn't really know what they were doing or care enough to do it well then they tried the service provider and were desperate for someone to just make things work well. I almost didn't want the job because it was so much work at first. I was in over my head but I am glad I did. I would take this job again in a heartbeat.
I thought I would enjoy being a part of a team, but I actually prefer working alone. There is no communication here and I find so many things not documented and also completely mis-configured. I end up doing their job for them.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. so your are reacting to things incorrectly as usual.
-
@jaredbusch said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 One thing that I have been able to do is market myself here. Every time we have reviews, they give me x% of a raise and know that I am going to negotiate more. Only once did I not get what I asked for (this was at 90 days on the job) but I did get more than I had been given.
When dealing with people that manage you and don't have the first clue as to what you do, you have to make sure that they know, you know what you are doing and that you are doing a lot of it. The key is that you overwhelm them with the results of what you have been working on. Results aren't always as tangible. For instance, one of the first things I went through were the GPOs. I spent hours and hours looking at what was in place and went through and re did them. I printed out a copy of the domain-wide GPO and it was quite thick. Then I printed out Visio diagrams of the network infrastructure that I had mapped and revised. Then I was able to compile a list of accomplishments for the previous year and projects that I was currently working on or would be working on the next year. Each year I check them off and add more for the next.
You have to show them things in ways that they understand. Most of the time, it is printed on paper. Now I just stick to the accomplishments and projects lists and save the paper because they know the quality and volume of work that I do for them.
I've done this. It comes down to what they believe. One of my bosses said "We haven't had any issues. do we even need IT?" Not kidding. I even explained for over an hour, everything that I did to make that happen and she just chose not to believe me.
Well, in that case, you need to move on. They won't realize what they had until you are gone. I came here at a great time. After a list of people that didn't really know what they were doing or care enough to do it well then they tried the service provider and were desperate for someone to just make things work well. I almost didn't want the job because it was so much work at first. I was in over my head but I am glad I did. I would take this job again in a heartbeat.
I thought I would enjoy being a part of a team, but I actually prefer working alone. There is no communication here and I find so many things not documented and also completely mis-configured. I end up doing their job for them.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. so your are reacting to things incorrectly as usual.
Being a team involves communicating efficiently and working together. How are they not related?
-
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@jaredbusch said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 One thing that I have been able to do is market myself here. Every time we have reviews, they give me x% of a raise and know that I am going to negotiate more. Only once did I not get what I asked for (this was at 90 days on the job) but I did get more than I had been given.
When dealing with people that manage you and don't have the first clue as to what you do, you have to make sure that they know, you know what you are doing and that you are doing a lot of it. The key is that you overwhelm them with the results of what you have been working on. Results aren't always as tangible. For instance, one of the first things I went through were the GPOs. I spent hours and hours looking at what was in place and went through and re did them. I printed out a copy of the domain-wide GPO and it was quite thick. Then I printed out Visio diagrams of the network infrastructure that I had mapped and revised. Then I was able to compile a list of accomplishments for the previous year and projects that I was currently working on or would be working on the next year. Each year I check them off and add more for the next.
You have to show them things in ways that they understand. Most of the time, it is printed on paper. Now I just stick to the accomplishments and projects lists and save the paper because they know the quality and volume of work that I do for them.
I've done this. It comes down to what they believe. One of my bosses said "We haven't had any issues. do we even need IT?" Not kidding. I even explained for over an hour, everything that I did to make that happen and she just chose not to believe me.
Well, in that case, you need to move on. They won't realize what they had until you are gone. I came here at a great time. After a list of people that didn't really know what they were doing or care enough to do it well then they tried the service provider and were desperate for someone to just make things work well. I almost didn't want the job because it was so much work at first. I was in over my head but I am glad I did. I would take this job again in a heartbeat.
I thought I would enjoy being a part of a team, but I actually prefer working alone. There is no communication here and I find so many things not documented and also completely mis-configured. I end up doing their job for them.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. so your are reacting to things incorrectly as usual.
Being a team involves communicating efficiently and working together. How are they not related?
Because one isn't happening, so the other doesn't exist.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
For what it's worth, I do believe that an IT department of 1 is rarely ever the best solution.
The problem of the SMB is that you have a complexity need of, say, ten IT people. But a capacity need of, maybe, .8 IT people. So you are always forced to either hire more people than you need for capacity or fewer than you need for capability.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@jaredbusch said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wrx7m said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@wirestyle22 One thing that I have been able to do is market myself here. Every time we have reviews, they give me x% of a raise and know that I am going to negotiate more. Only once did I not get what I asked for (this was at 90 days on the job) but I did get more than I had been given.
When dealing with people that manage you and don't have the first clue as to what you do, you have to make sure that they know, you know what you are doing and that you are doing a lot of it. The key is that you overwhelm them with the results of what you have been working on. Results aren't always as tangible. For instance, one of the first things I went through were the GPOs. I spent hours and hours looking at what was in place and went through and re did them. I printed out a copy of the domain-wide GPO and it was quite thick. Then I printed out Visio diagrams of the network infrastructure that I had mapped and revised. Then I was able to compile a list of accomplishments for the previous year and projects that I was currently working on or would be working on the next year. Each year I check them off and add more for the next.
You have to show them things in ways that they understand. Most of the time, it is printed on paper. Now I just stick to the accomplishments and projects lists and save the paper because they know the quality and volume of work that I do for them.
I've done this. It comes down to what they believe. One of my bosses said "We haven't had any issues. do we even need IT?" Not kidding. I even explained for over an hour, everything that I did to make that happen and she just chose not to believe me.
Well, in that case, you need to move on. They won't realize what they had until you are gone. I came here at a great time. After a list of people that didn't really know what they were doing or care enough to do it well then they tried the service provider and were desperate for someone to just make things work well. I almost didn't want the job because it was so much work at first. I was in over my head but I am glad I did. I would take this job again in a heartbeat.
I thought I would enjoy being a part of a team, but I actually prefer working alone. There is no communication here and I find so many things not documented and also completely mis-configured. I end up doing their job for them.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. so your are reacting to things incorrectly as usual.
Being a team involves communicating efficiently and working together. How are they not related?
Because one isn't happening, so the other doesn't exist.
You can't have one without the other, sure - but Wire's desire is to have both. Instead he has neither. So they are related, but as you said, you can't have the second without first having the first.
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
I've inquired at the MSPs in the area, and I'm where I am because none of them offer me anything remotely similar to what I have now, and some have even contacted me for consulting at times.
MSPs are specifically not something you want to consider based on locality. MSPs are a market that needs to consolidate and the good ones are almost always going to be "somewhere far away." Any random MSP is likely to suck. but any random SMB will, too.
-
WOW - so much weirdness in the MSP vs SMB IT.
A company should be worried about one thing - making money. As such, hiring a good MSP should be the right choice.. but as mentioned, there are probably 100 bad MSPs for every one good one. As such the experience is that MSPs suck and inhouse is the way to go. Sadly, this is likely just a sign of bad experience. Not good ones.
If you're company of 90 employees is handled by a good MSP, one that had dedicated people who know how to manage workstations for example, those few workers at the MSP might be able to handle 1000 PCs over many clients, while you handle 90. Then another group of people might handle 100 plus servers, while you handle 4, and another group can handle phones for 1000's while you again handle 90. Sure you get to dip your toe in all of these things, but you are much less efficient at doing it, and efficiency costs money.
As for upward mobility - I've rarely seen any mobility at all in a SMB. You're the IT guy. Period. If you grow to the point where you need two people, you might the the lead IT guy. Not really sure what that gets you? Though in an enterprise, I'll agree that changing to another specialty might be pretty hard - the main thing to remember here - be prepared to go to another employer. This is possibly the number one failing according to Scott (I'm guessing here). The lack of willingness to leave your current employer. Just as bad as being unwilling to move.
-
@scottalanmiller So what do you classify as a good MSP?
-
@dashrender said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
A company should be worried about one thing - making money. As such, hiring a good MSP should be the right choice.. but as mentioned, there are probably 100 bad MSPs for every one good one. As such the experience is that MSPs suck and inhouse is the way to go.
And then find the same problem with in house IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@dashrender said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
A company should be worried about one thing - making money. As such, hiring a good MSP should be the right choice.. but as mentioned, there are probably 100 bad MSPs for every one good one. As such the experience is that MSPs suck and inhouse is the way to go.
And then find the same problem with in house IT.
Oh most definitely!
-
@tirendir said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
@scottalanmiller So what do you classify as a good MSP?
Same thing that good internal IT would be, except outsourced and at proper scale. Good is somewhat relative, but just like how only 1% of in house IT staff is good, only 1% of outsourced firms are good. MSPs have the benefit of a better infrastructure and more on the line and more reason to work with the customers than internal staff.
-
@dashrender said in When Is It Okay to Say You Are a System Administrator:
As for upward mobility - I've rarely seen any mobility at all in a SMB. You're the IT guy. Period. If you grow to the point where you need two people, you might the the lead IT guy. Not really sure what that gets you?
Right. It's hard to take someone doing job X and promote them to the boss because they improved while also bringing in a new guy to do 20-50% of their former workload, while decreasing the overall value from the networking communications effect and pay the original person more. The IT budget just grew substantially but the workload didn't change, at least we assume not. So your job gets cut in half, where does the promotion come from? Charity, basically.
-
@scottalanmiller I guess my question is if good in-house IT is no different than good MSP IT, then why does it matter which solution any particular organization decides to employ, if not both? the supposed benefit of an MSP or Enterprise affording upward mobility is the same reason that anyone who is actually good at their job is less likely to be promoted from their current role proportional to how good they actually are. It's just a catch 22 where there are more positions available, but there's no incentive for the organization to actually promote you.. but in fact, their incentive is to not promote their specialists.
If the problem is people, then the issue is identical in MSPs and in In-house IT. The only difference is the impact could be greater to an SMB that it is to an MSP... unless the MSP doesn't have any role redundancy in which case now ALL of their clients who rely on that same sucky individual all suffer instead of one SMB. If the same 1% of internal IT are good as the 1% of MSPs are good.. then lets dispense with the MSP talk and call it what it is: Most IT people suck at doing IT, and your opinion is that MSPs provide a higher likelihood that they will suck less even with the exact same fundamental problem because there are more chances for them to have some of those 1% not-sucky IT people. Is that a reasonably accurate assessment?
