Intenal vs External IT Staffing

The answer is never as simple as yes or no. It depends on a number of factors.

I would express the first one as stability. How quickly is the network changing and growing. If you have a stable network with lots of capacity, and no immediate need for growth it might be worth considering an outsider. But if you are growing, its probably useful to have an internal resource.You can have a mix of internal and external.

The other thing to consider is business impact. The higher the impact of anoutage, the less likely you want an on-call specialist. If your company can absorb an outage, then think about outsourcing.

Another factor is whether you have automated monitoring - this would be a key success factor in having an outside person be able to administer your net. If you have tools that will monitor your critical routers and services and page when there is a fault then it might be worthwhile. If you don't you are safer with someone close at hand.

But personally I'd rather have the automated tools and fewer in house staff than go outside. I don't want to call an on call person and find out they are busy with another client when my network fails.

James

I agree with James.

And, I will add that as soon as you outsource, you lose control. What will the vendor do when your contract comes up for renewal. Jack up prices by 10%?

You must negotiate the Service Level.

Instead of having network admins running around, you must now have someone monitor the contract to ensure that you are receive the agreed-upon level of service (unless you're crazy enough to trust them).

Does the contract include performance monitoring, or just fixing it when it breaks. Unless you take a proactive approach to MANAGING the network, you are going to spend a whole bunch fixing it.

Look beyond the basics.

A couple of factors I would consider:
1. What do your current people know about the system, and how much training would it take for them to take care of 80% of the problems? (most engineering or technical companies, including machine shops, have some knowledge and basic computer skills from integrating machinery with controls)

2. How "established" is the network, how long has it been in place, and does it have capacity to spare, including cabling for additional employees, office changes, etc? Can someone move a computer and plug it in without calling for help?

3. Is your business involved in critical technology improvements that periodically require new software, machines, etc? (eg.testing and development/instrumentation/measurements/graphic arts/printing/electronics/manufacturing/education.)

In summary, if you don't need to change anything, the network has been up for a few months without attention, and your computers and software are adequate and stable, you don't needan in-house person. Take a wild guess based on your current resources, change demands, and network complexity to determine how much time someone will need to spend on it. Something as simple as creating external access could cause the time/expertise factor to multiply if it is critical, and the current system doesn't support it easily

As an IT Manager myself, I often ponder this same question.

As stated very intelligently before, the decision needs to be based on the facts at hand:
How large is the network?
How experienced are the users?
Is there a secure remote service available?
What is your IT budget?

The list goes on and on. What I can provide, is that although most network administrators will tell you they preferr working strictly in their field, as I do, a lot of companies cannot justify having a full time IT Manager.

I work for a manufacturer, and cost and the bottom line are in every other sentence. I myself handle a variety of other important business management positions. While this is not my favorite thing to do, it provides me with an abundance of cross training in the corporate world.

An IT Manager needs to be able to assess the situation, develope a strategy, analyse the cost/return, and make a decision that will effect the company's ability to make a profit.

So, in conclusion, you may hire an outside source that will charge you a rate that may fluctuate and be at the mercy of that person's schedule, or you may hire a full time person and delegate some other duties to them to keep them busy. In the end, both parties will benefit.

I hope this was helpfull and did not seem like rambling.

I don't think outsourcing your IT specialists is such a hot idea. Maybe it would work in some scenarios, but each network is unique unto itself--there are as many different networks as there are networks. I think it's good to have someone in-housewho knows the company's network like a prison inmate knows his cell.

It would be hard pressed if a small company's network went down without having someone on staff. It sounds like a good idea as long as everything is working the way it should. It has been my experience that if the server went down and you have to wait for someone to come in and do the troubleshooting, YOUR IN BIG TROUBLE!
No matter how small a busniess you have. When your staff is non-productive, you loose money and time. It's something you really have to give some thought to.

I would suggest that you follow a conservatiive approach.
Recruit a low level /Junior guy to handle small (less skilled) day to day activity
For critical support you can engage an external ageny with SLA's defined in your terms

I would suggest that you follow a conservatiive approach.
Recruit a low level /Junior guy to handle small (less skilled) day to day activity
For critical support you can engage an external ageny with SLA's defined in your terms

I would suggest that you follow a conservatiive approach.
Recruit a low level /Junior guy to handle small (less skilled) day to day activity
For critical support you can engage an external ageny with SLA's defined in your terms

This question was auto closed due to inactivity