We have about 150 users across several offices, and leadership is considering ending our co-managed IT arrangement. I can handle most day-to-day administration, but I’m concerned about after-hours incidents, time off, and having backup for issues outside my expertise. How have other teams handled coverage and escalation after making this kind of change?
Has anyone moved from co-managed IT to a mostly in-house setup?
Asked by
Junie
Answers
The coverage gap is the part I would plan for first. Managing normal requests alone is different from being the only person who can respond during a holiday, an outage, or an emergency that needs skills you do not have.
Before ending the agreement, compare the cost of a second internal person with a smaller support arrangement that explicitly covers leave and escalation. Whatever you choose, make sure the responsibility and response expectations are written down, not just assumed.
Reply to this answer
You do not necessarily need one provider to handle everything. Some organizations keep day-to-day administration internal and use specialists for defined areas, such as networking, cloud systems, or security. That can preserve access to expertise without paying for a broad managed service that is not meeting expectations.
It only works if the handoff is real. Confirm who can access each system, where current documentation lives, how urgent work gets escalated, and whether those specialists can cover when you are away. A list of tools and credentials is not a substitute for usable, current runbooks.
Reply to this answer
Even if the MSP has not been doing much lately, it may be providing a fallback that only becomes visible when you are unavailable. I would test that assumption before treating recent normal operations as proof that there is no coverage risk.
Ask for a clear transition inventory: administrative and emergency accounts, system ownership, backup and recovery procedures, vendor contacts, network and cloud configuration, and any open issues. Then test the critical recovery steps and make sure the company knows what will not be covered once the contract ends.
Reply to this answer
For a company spread across several offices, I would be cautious about making one person the entire support plan. The workload may be manageable most weeks, but a hardware failure or simultaneous urgent requests can change that quickly.
A second internal hire is one option. Another is a small, clearly scoped external arrangement for after-hours response and time-off coverage. Either way, leadership should understand the service level they are choosing, including what can wait and what cannot.
Junie:
That’s the decision we need to make explicit. The current discussion has focused more on the contract cost than on what coverage we would be giving up.
Reply to this answer
One practical middle ground is keeping the MSP only for specific services where you can see the value, and ending the rest. For example, an organization might retain security monitoring or a named specialist for complex changes while handling routine administration internally.
Be careful that “available for escalation” means something concrete. Check the response window, who is authorized to work on your environment, and whether they will have enough documentation and access to help without you guiding every step.
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
V2+Clatterbox:
That distinction helps. I’ll look at whether specialist support can include actual leave coverage, rather than just project work when I’m available.