I was contacted about a senior cyber/infrastructure position at a manufacturing company with roughly 450 employees and several hundred endpoints. The compensation would increase my total pay by about $85,000, including a base salary increase and a potential 30% bonus. The role is fully onsite, so I would need to account for commuting, but I would still come out well ahead financially.
Their environment has significant technical debt. They do not have Active Directory, a ticketing system, centralized patch management, or proper asset management. They currently use Google Workspace, but I would lead a migration to Microsoft 365, including email, Defender, DLP, and related security controls. I would also help choose and implement new firewalls, switches, wireless equipment, servers, and either an on-premises domain controller or Entra ID. Their infrastructure includes Cisco networking, a Palo Alto firewall, older Cisco access points, ESXi running on Dell VxRail, Linux ERP servers, and Synology storage used for backups.
The existing IT department has about four people, including two junior helpdesk staff. The company also has considerable shadow IT, with departments adopting their own tools and processes without involving IT. Private equity recently purchased the business and is funding the modernization effort. The company is still locally managed, but I would be the senior technical resource with substantial influence over architecture, purchasing, and implementation.
My background is in networking, wireless, switching and routing, firewalls, ESXi, Microsoft 365, server deployment, and desktop support. I have also worked in service desk and sysadmin roles. I enjoy my current team and manager, but after five years the MSP environment and increasing focus on KPIs are wearing thin. The new position is exciting because I would get to build and own the environment, but I am concerned about political resistance, unrealistic timelines, legacy manufacturing systems, and being blamed for problems without having enough authority or staff. What should I investigate before accepting, and does this sound like a worthwhile opportunity or a potential disaster?
5 Answers
The most important issue is not the technology—it is whether leadership will actually support the changes. Get clear answers about your budget authority, approval process, modernization timeline, and who can stop departments from continuing to use shadow IT. You need visible backing from executives above the IT manager, not just verbal encouragement from the hiring team. If they expect you to fix everything but cannot give you authority, funding, or protection from internal politics, I would pass. Since the pay increase is substantial and private equity is funding the work, this could be a strong opportunity, but get those commitments in writing if possible.
Manufacturing environments have special risks that should be part of your discovery plan. You may find old workstations, unsupported operating systems, undocumented applications, or production equipment that cannot be upgraded without affecting a multimillion-dollar process. Do not promise aggressive replacement timelines before you inventory everything and understand the operational dependencies. Ask about the manufacturing network, OT and PLC systems, segmentation, backup testing, business continuity, and whether you will have authority to isolate unsafe systems without disrupting production.
The current environment is not necessarily stable just because it has not failed yet. No identity platform, no formal patching, spreadsheet-based assets, and unmanaged devices create real operational and security risk. I would prioritize identity, inventory, backups, patching, and basic documentation before chasing every hardware upgrade. Also confirm the on-call expectations and whether leadership understands that legacy production systems may need compensating controls rather than immediate replacement. With the compensation, executive funding, and genuine authority to set direction, this sounds worthwhile—but only if the company accepts that modernization will require phased work and difficult conversations.
I would seriously consider taking it as a way to move beyond the MSP treadmill and finally own the outcome of your work. Building identity, ticketing, endpoint management, patching, Microsoft 365 security, and documentation from the ground up could be excellent experience and give you a lot of professional ownership. Just make sure they are hiring you to lead a transformation rather than expecting one person to perform miracles while the existing team continues operating unchanged.
That ownership is the biggest attraction for me too. In an MSP, you can implement good solutions but rarely get to shape the long-term environment.
Clarify the practical workload before accepting. A four-person IT team with only two junior helpdesk employees may be very lean for hundreds of users, a major cloud migration, infrastructure upgrades, security compliance, and ongoing support. Ask whether the role includes on-call work, how often the facility operates, whether more staff or contractors will be added, and how much time you will receive for discovery before major deadlines. Also ask what success looks like at 90 days, six months, and one year.
The lack of ticketing and centralized asset management means the initial discovery phase could be much larger than they expect. You will need time to establish an accurate baseline before making major changes.
Exactly. A large budget does not help if every purchase and policy change gets blocked by another manager. Ask who has final authority when business units resist.