Yeah, but I think several people are taking a pretty narrow view when it
comes to skill sets of a typical MSP technician. Let's face it, I don't
care what industry you look at.. there will be rookies, semi skilled, and
the seasoned vets. Why should the MSP be any different? There is nothing
wrong with having a junior person looking at scopes. You give them the
proper training, and a set of interactions to follow, and they can handle
the majority of issues. When something that they don't understand comes up,
they can pass it to the more experienced. That is where the tier 1, tier 2
and tier 3 levels of maintenance comes in handy. It gives the worker a
career path to work towards, and allows them to move up in the company
rather than having to leave to get the promotion.
To think that the MSP should be held to a higher standard is not exactly
fair...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Murren [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Managed Service Providers
>
> One of the thinks that may drive companies to use MSP is the sheer
> lack of talented people in the locations required by small business to
> support itself. The government (all levels from local to federal) has
> a problem since they cannot pay enough to get sufficient numbers of
> quality people, and retain them.
>
> Personnel turn over is a big problem everywhere, but if the MSPs can
> pay and make the jobs worth keeping they may be able to reach the
> critical mass of talent required.
>
> Of course if the MSP cannot get enough high quality people and they
> allow a compromise of a customers servers, the customer is on the hook
> to its customers and the gov't. Even if the contract is written to
> have the MSP pay for all damages and legal costs, it is the customer
> that gets the bad rap to the end users. The MSP gets a bad rep in the
> industry. Yet the damage is done.
>
> I doubt that a company would be able to dodge the bullet for liability
> by using an MSP. Of course the reply to "I was paying XYZ Corp to
> handle that." is "You paid them, they were acting on your behalf, ergo
> you are still liable".
>
> I just finished going through the same sort of stuff with an ASP, who
> ended up closing their doors on short notice. Which just points to the
> next problem of what to do if the MSP closes shop on you.
>
> Another thing this vendor did, promise Hot Fail over to a remote
> location (Main site NYC, secondary site St. Louis) then close
> St. Louis to save money and have not real plan on how to recover. I
> found out about this change during a 3 day service outage.
>
> Do you think my customers (internal and external) cared that the ASP
> was down? They never even heard of the ASP, but they were calling me
> about it and busting my stones about why I picked that ASP (I didn't,
> but they did not care).
>
> my $.02
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Murren
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _______________________________________________
> Firewalls mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
_______________________________________________
Firewalls mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
