The Recurring Problem: A Managed Services Story–Chapter 7

Previously – https://blog.ciaops.com/2026/07/31/the-recurring-problem-a-managed-services-story-chapter-6/

image

The transformation that followed took the better part of eighteen months, and it was messier and slower than any tidy retelling makes it sound. Priya led it, with a whiteboard in her office that eventually filled an entire wall.

image

The first and hardest change was financial. Bridgepoint stopped selling hourly project work as its default and began requiring every new client, and every renewing one, to move onto a tiered managed-services contract with a three-year term — not because Priya loved locking clients in, but because Renata’s numbers had made the logic unavoidable: longer, deeper contracts weren’t just more predictable, they were worth measurably more, and clients who wouldn’t commit to a real partnership usually weren’t clients worth keeping anyway. It cost Bridgepoint two accounts that flatly refused the new terms. It gained the company, within a year, a recurring-revenue base that had climbed from 46 percent to 71 percent of total revenue, on its way toward the 85-percent target Priya had written at the top of the whiteboard and circled twice.

image

The second change was strategic focus. Rather than continuing to be everything to everyone, Bridgepoint made a deliberate bet on two verticals where it already had real experience: healthcare and light manufacturing. It hired a part-time compliance consultant with a HIPAA background, built a documented incident-response playbook mapped explicitly to healthcare regulatory requirements, and began marketing itself, for the first time in its history, as something other than a friendly generalist. The pitch decks stopped saying “we support any business” and started saying “we understand what a HIPAA auditor is going to ask you, because we’ve already answered it forty times.” Pricing for the healthcare tier came in meaningfully higher than the old flat rate — clients paid it without much argument, because for the first time, the price reflected expertise they could see, not just hours they were trusting someone to bill honestly.

image

The third change was the one Tom Baptiste’s plant-manager scare had made unavoidable: Bridgepoint built an actual AI governance offering, something that hadn’t existed anywhere in its service catalog eighteen months earlier. It started small — a one-time “AI readiness assessment” that inventoried every AI tool a client’s employees were already using, sanctioned or not, and flagged where sensitive data might be leaking to public tools nobody in leadership had approved. It grew into an ongoing service: written AI usage policies tailored to each client, ongoing monitoring for unsanctioned tool use, and, for the healthcare and finance clients who needed it, documentation aligned with emerging frameworks their own auditors were starting to ask about. It was Aisha’s idea, developed with a compliance consultant Priya brought in, and it became, within a year, one of the highest-margin services Bridgepoint had ever sold — not because it required expensive infrastructure, but because it required exactly the kind of judgment Jordan and his fellow senior technicians actually had, applied to a problem clients didn’t know how to solve themselves.

image

“We spent eight years being the people who fixed what broke,” Priya said, at the leadership offsite where she presented the first full year of results. “We’re spending the next eight being the people who tell clients what’s about to break, and what they’re not allowed to plug into their network without asking us first. That’s a completely different business. It just happens to be run by the same people.”

image

Why I Wrote Is the Traditional MSP and TSP Business Model Becoming Obsolete?

image

Over the last few years I’ve had the same conversation with MSP owners dozens of times.

It usually starts with a variation of the same question:

“We’re still growing, so why do people keep telling us our business model is under threat?”

It’s a fair question.

Most MSPs are not seeing clients disappear overnight. The demand for technology remains strong. Microsoft 365 continues to expand. Security requirements continue to increase. Businesses still need trusted advisers to help them navigate increasingly complex technology environments.

So why the concern?

Because I believe many MSPs are measuring the health of their business using indicators that are becoming less relevant.

That belief is what led me to write Is the Traditional MSP and TSP Business Model Becoming Obsolete? The report examines the growing gap between providers that are adapting to AI, automation and changing customer expectations, and those that are still relying on assumptions that worked a decade ago.


The question isn’t whether MSPs survive

One of the biggest misunderstandings in the market today is the idea that MSPs are somehow disappearing.

I don’t believe that completely.

In fact, I believe businesses will need trusted technology partners more than ever.

What I do think is disappearing is the value attached to many traditional activities that MSPs have historically relied upon.

Routine administration is becoming increasingly automated.

Security expectations are rising.

Clients are becoming more outcome focused.

AI is changing how work is performed inside both customer organisations and service providers.

The real question is not whether MSPs survive.

The real question is whether the way many MSPs currently operate remains commercially attractive over the next decade.

That distinction matters.


Why I decided to research the issue properly

There is no shortage of opinions about AI and the future of managed services.

Unfortunately, there is also no shortage of hype.

I wanted something different.

I wanted evidence.

I wanted current financial benchmarks, analyst forecasts, industry data, acquisition trends and market observations pulled together into a single document that leaders could use to make strategic decisions. The publication is positioned as an evidence-based strategic report focused on AI, automation, platform shifts and their impact on MSPs and TSPs. [directorci…umroad.com]

Most importantly, I wanted a resource that challenged both sides of the argument.

The report doesn’t simply assume every traditional provider is doomed. Nor does it assume technology will magically solve every business problem.

Instead, it looks at what is actually happening in the market and asks a more practical question:

“What would a successful MSP look like in 2030?”


What readers will gain

When I speak with MSP owners, many are wrestling with the same strategic challenges:

  • How does AI affect our service model?

  • What happens when automation reduces labour requirements?

  • How should we price services in the future?

  • Where does Microsoft Copilot fit?

  • What capabilities should we invest in now?

  • How do we increase the value of our business?

Those are boardroom questions, not technical questions.

The report explores these issues and examines why security, AI-enabled services, automation and outcome-focused engagements are becoming increasingly important growth areas. It also discusses transformation approaches and includes a practical action framework aimed at helping providers prepare for the future. [directorci…umroad.com]

As someone who spends a large part of my time helping organisations get ready for Microsoft 365 Copilot, I see a similar pattern everywhere.

Technology is no longer the difficult part.

Change is.

The providers that learn how to guide customers through governance, security, productivity and AI adoption will have an advantage that goes well beyond technical expertise.


This report is really about decisions

At its core, this publication is not a technology report.

It is a business strategy report.

It is designed for MSP owners, technology service providers, Microsoft partners, consultants and investors who want a clearer view of where the industry is heading and what actions may be required to remain competitive. [directorci…umroad.com]

If you already believe everything is fine, the report may challenge your assumptions.

If you are worried about the future, the report may give you a clearer framework for evaluating your options.

Either way, my goal was to provide a practical, evidence-based resource that helps leaders make better decisions during a period of significant industry change.

Because the biggest risk facing most MSPs today is not AI.

It’s assuming tomorrow will look enough like yesterday that no meaningful change is required.

If you’re serious about understanding where managed services may be heading over the next decade, I believe this report will be a worthwhile investment.

Learn more here: Is the Traditional MSP and TSP Business Model Becoming Obsolete?

Stop Optimising the Marketing and Start Designing the Experience

image

When businesses look for growth, the first instinct is usually to focus on marketing. Better campaigns. More content. Smarter advertising. More leads.

I get it. Marketing is visible. It’s measurable. It feels like progress.

But the more I work with Microsoft 365 Copilot and watch how organisations are adopting AI, the more I think the bigger opportunity sits somewhere else entirely.

The opportunity is in the experience.

Most businesses spend a lot of energy trying to attract new customers, yet leave many of their day-to-day interactions to chance. The welcome email gets written once and forgotten. Sales conversations follow whatever path the presenter chooses on the day. Meeting follow-ups vary depending on how busy people are. Customer interactions become inconsistent because everyone is moving too fast.

The result isn’t usually catastrophic. It’s just forgettable.

That’s where I believe Copilot can have a much bigger impact than many people realise.

When people talk about Microsoft 365 Copilot, they often focus on productivity gains. Saving time in Outlook. Creating documents faster in Word. Summarising meetings in Teams.

Those are valuable benefits, but I think they’re only the starting point.

The real value appears when organisations use that saved time and improved consistency to deliberately design better experiences.

I encourage businesses to walk through their customer journey from beginning to end.

What happens after the first enquiry arrives?

What does the first response look like?

What information does the customer receive?

What happens after the sales call?

What happens after the workshop?

What happens after the project goes live?

Every one of those touchpoints creates an impression. Every one contributes to the story a customer eventually tells someone else.

Copilot gives organisations the ability to think more intentionally about those moments.

Instead of rushing through administrative work, teams can spend more time refining communications. Instead of producing meeting notes hours later, summaries and action items can be delivered while conversations are still fresh. Instead of every proposal sounding slightly different, organisations can build a consistent voice across the business.

I’ve seen businesses use Copilot to create follow-up material that customers genuinely find useful rather than simply ticking a box. I’ve watched teams capture discussions more accurately, identify commitments more clearly, and reduce the chances that important details disappear into someone’s notebook.

None of that feels particularly dramatic.

Yet that’s often where the biggest improvements happen.

Customers rarely remember that you used the latest technology.

They remember how easy you made things.

They remember whether you followed through.

They remember whether interactions felt organised, professional, and considered.

That’s the theatre many businesses overlook.

Not theatre in the sense of being artificial. Theatre in the sense of carefully designing moments that leave a positive impression.

A prompt response that references the conversation accurately.

A meeting recap that makes the next step obvious.

A proposal that addresses real business outcomes rather than generic marketing language.

A workshop where participants feel heard because insights are captured and reflected back immediately.

These experiences don’t happen by accident. They happen because somebody took the time to design them.

What excites me about Microsoft 365 Copilot is that it creates space for exactly that kind of thinking.

When less energy is spent on repetitive work, more energy can be invested in improving quality, clarity, and consistency. The conversation shifts from “How do we get through today’s workload?” to “How do we create a better experience?”

That’s a far more interesting question.

As AI becomes increasingly common, simply using the technology won’t be a differentiator. Everyone will have access to similar tools.

What will differentiate organisations is how they apply those tools to create experiences that people remember.

So instead of only looking at your marketing funnel, take a walk through your entire business.

Look at every email.

Every meeting.

Every document.

Every customer interaction.

Then ask yourself a simple question:

Which of these moments deserves a little more attention?

My experience is that the organisations getting the most value from Copilot aren’t just working faster. They’re using the opportunity to make every interaction a little better.

And that’s a story customers are far more likely to tell.

The Recurring Problem: A Managed Services Story–Chapter 6

Previously – https://blog.ciaops.com/2026/07/30/the-recurring-problem-a-managed-services-story-chapter-5/

image

Dave called Aisha into his office the following Monday, alone, no leadership meeting audience. “Tell me honestly,” he said. “If we actually did this — really did it, not a five-hundred-ticket trial license — what would it take, and what would break?”

Aisha, to her credit, didn’t gloat. She pulled up a proposal she’d apparently been quietly refining for months on the assumption nobody would ever ask to see it. A tiered rollout: automated triage and resolution for the top eight ticket categories that accounted for nearly sixty percent of volume; predictive monitoring that could flag failing hardware and unusual network behavior before clients ever noticed a problem, instead of after; and, critically, a real security escalation path with automated paging, not a shared inbox and a prayer.

image

“What would it take?” she said. “Budget, about $140,000 in tooling and integration over the first year. What would break — that’s the harder question. Not the technology. The technology works; I’ve been running the proof of concept for months and the failure rate on auto-resolved tickets is under two percent, and every one of those gets caught and escalated to a human, not silently dropped. What breaks is the team, if we don’t handle this right. Jordan thinks this is about replacing him. It isn’t. But if we don’t say that out loud, clearly, more than once, he’s going to be right to be angry, because nobody will have told him otherwise.”

image

Dave took that seriously enough to have the conversation with Jordan directly, which was, in its own way, harder than the conversation with Renata Cole had been. They sat in the break room after hours, two coffees going cold.

“I’m not going to pretend some of this doesn’t automate work you currently do,” Dave said. “It does. Password resets. Basic troubleshooting. The stuff that’s been eating your week. What I need from you isn’t to compete with it. It’s the thing it can’t do — sit with Tom Baptiste and tell him honestly what his plant manager’s AI habit is going to cost him if nobody manages it, or walk into a room with a healthcare compliance officer and speak their language because you’ve done it for eleven years. I can’t automate the part where clients trust you. I can only automate the part where they don’t need to wait nineteen hours for a password reset while they’re deciding whether they still do.”

Jordan didn’t answer right away. “So my job changes,” he finally said. “From doing the work to explaining the work.”

“Your job changes from being the guy who shows up,” Dave said, “to being the guy clients call before they know they have a problem. That’s a better job than the one you have now. It’s just not the one you were trained to think you were signing up for.”

image

It wasn’t a clean resolution. Jordan stayed skeptical for months, and two of Bridgepoint’s other senior technicians left over the following year — one retired early, one took a role at a competitor that hadn’t changed anything and, as far as anyone could tell, was quietly struggling because of it. But Jordan stayed, and by the following spring he had become, somewhat to his own surprise, the person clients most wanted running their onboarding calls for the company’s new security offering, because he was the one person in the building who could explain, in plain language and without a sales pitch, exactly why it mattered.

image

More Consumption Doesn’t Mean More Progress

image

I had a conversation last week that’s stuck with me. Someone was telling me, with real pride, how productive their week had been. They’d cleared every email, sat through nine meetings, skimmed four reports and watched a couple of webinars. By Friday they were wrung out. So I asked the obvious question: what actually changed because of all that? There was a long pause. The honest answer was, not much. They’d taken in a mountain of information and moved almost nothing forward.

That gap — between taking things in and actually getting somewhere — is something I keep coming back to.

Busy is not the same as moving

It has never been easier to consume. Open Outlook and Copilot will boil a forty-message thread down to a few lines before you’ve read the subject. Miss a Teams meeting and the recap is sitting there waiting for you. Ask Copilot in Word to turn a thirty-page document into five points and it’s done in seconds. All of it genuinely useful. But here’s the trap I keep watching people fall into: they mistake the speed of consuming for the act of progressing.

Reading a summary feels like work. It isn’t. It’s the warm-up to work. That summary only earns its place if it leads to a decision, a reply, a change of plan — something that wasn’t true before you read it.

The point of a summary is what you do next

When I use Copilot to catch up on a noisy channel, the value was never the recap itself. It’s the one thing the recap surfaces — the client still waiting on an answer, the date that quietly moved, the call only I can make. If I read the summary and slide straight into the next one, I’ve consumed, but I haven’t progressed a single step.

So I’ve started asking Copilot a different kind of question. Not “summarise this thread,” but “what here needs a decision from me?” In Outlook, instead of “what’s in my inbox,” I’ll ask what’s waiting on a reply from me specifically. It’s a small change in wording, but it shifts Copilot from a faster way to take things in into a prompt to actually act.

More input, fewer outcomes

The real risk in all this capability is sheer volume. Because we can now process more, we start to feel we should. More reports, more recaps, more dashboards, more catch-ups. But a business doesn’t run on how much its people have read this week. It runs on what they decided, finished and delivered.

I’d rather end a week having genuinely moved three things forward than having consumed everything that landed on my desk. Copilot is brilliant at clearing the path — pulling the signal out of a crowded SharePoint site, drafting a first version in Word, getting the numbers into shape in Excel. But once the path is clear, walking down it is still on me.

The tools will keep getting faster at feeding us information, and that’s not the part I’m watching. I’m watching whether all that speed actually changes what we do — or whether we just get very good at staying busy. Consumption is effortless now. Progress still needs a decision, and that’s the one thing no tool will make for you.

Comparing LLMs in Copilot services–Round 1 – Chat

image

Inspired by the recent soccer world cup, I have decided to create a Copilot LLM output comparison challenge.

The plan is to use the same prompt with all examples of different services in Copilot and then different models available in each service. After that, the idea is them to compare the winner of each round to determine the overall winner and to continue to do this on a regular basis as new models and services are added over time.

Thus, the methodology is to use the same complex prompt to generate the result from the model (a report) and then use a standard prompt to evaluate all the results to determine a winner. The easiest comparison method is to use Copilot in SharePoint but the aim will also to be to compare using other models as well. 

So, for round 1 I’m going to compare all the models available in Copilot chat. Comparison generated by Copilot for SharePoint.

Rather than try and fit the reports here I will upload them to my Github repository here in markdown format:

https://github.com/directorcia/general/tree/master/Copilot/Comparisons

Comparative Assessment – Live Writer Paste

This first report is now directly available at:

https://github.com/directorcia/general/blob/master/Copilot/Comparisons/20260630-Chat.md

The results where (out of 10):

1. Opus – 9.51

2. Sonnet – 9.45

3. GPT 5.6 Thinking – 8.76

4. GPT 5.5 Quick – 7.69

5. Auto – 6.93

So, the winner for Round 1 – Copilot Chat = Opus.

Onto Round 2


The Recurring Problem: A Managed Services Story–Chapter 5

Previouslyhttps://blog.ciaops.com/2026/07/29/the-recurring-problem-a-managed-services-story-chapter-4/

image

The idea of selling Bridgepoint, or at least taking on a growth investor, had floated around Dave’s head for a couple of years, mostly as a retirement fantasy he indulged on long drives. In March, half out of curiosity and half because losing Lakeside had rattled him more than he wanted to admit, he agreed to a preliminary valuation conversation with an M&A advisory firm that specialized in IT services roll-ups. Marcus had a contact; the meeting cost nothing but an afternoon.

The advisor, a clipped, unsentimental woman named Renata Cole, walked Dave and Priya through Bridgepoint’s financials with the emotional affect of someone reading a weather report. Revenue: $9.4 million. EBITDA: roughly $1.6 million, a healthy-looking 17 percent margin. Dave had always been quietly proud of that number.

“Your EBITDA is fine,” Renata said. “Your multiple is going to be a problem.”

“Explain that to me,” Dave said.

image

“At your size, with your revenue mix, buyers in this market are going to look at three things before they look at anything else,” she said, ticking them off on her fingers. “First: what percentage of your revenue is contracted, recurring, and sticky, versus one-off project work that could evaporate next quarter. Second: how concentrated your revenue is in your largest clients. Third: whether you have any real differentiation, or whether you’re a generalist competing on relationships and price. On the first, you’re sitting around forty-six percent recurring revenue — buyers want to see north of eighty-five percent before they’ll pay a premium multiple. On the second, your largest client is nineteen percent of revenue, and buyers get nervous well before that; anything over twenty to twenty-five percent concentrated in one account is a red flag they’ll price into the offer. On the third — no offense, Dave — ‘we’ve been doing this for eight years and our clients like us’ isn’t a moat. It’s a headline that every generalist MSP could put on their own website.”

She turned her laptop around so they could see the slide. A business with Bridgepoint’s EBITDA and a strong recurring-revenue base, high client diversification, and a specialized niche could reasonably expect eight to twelve times EBITDA, even higher with a security specialization. A business that looked like Bridgepoint currently looked — generalist, project-dependent, concentrated — was more realistically priced at four to six times, and buyers would likely structure a meaningful chunk of even that as an earnout contingent on retaining the client base through the transition.

image

Four to six times $1.6 million was, doing the arithmetic Dave really didn’t want to do in front of Renata, somewhere between $6.4 million and $9.6 million — for a company he’d spent eight years and, by his own private accounting, most of his thirties and half his forties building. Not a number to be ashamed of, exactly. But nowhere near what he’d let himself believe it might be worth, and nowhere near enough for the number to represent what it was supposed to represent: proof that the thing had been worth doing.

“I’m not telling you to sell,” Renata said, more gently, watching his face. “I’m telling you what the market is actually pricing, so that if you ever do want to sell — or even if you just want to run a business that isn’t one bad quarter away from a crisis — you know exactly which three levers you’d need to pull. It’s not really about me, or about a buyer. It’s about whether your business model matches the world your clients are actually living in now. Right now, it doesn’t quite.”

image

Dave didn’t sleep much that night. He kept coming back to something Aisha had said in November, dismissed at the time as youthful overconfidence: You’re spending forty percent of your week resetting passwords. That’s not judgment. That’s just volume.

For the first time, he let himself actually finish the thought he’d been avoiding for a year: Bridgepoint wasn’t losing because it was doing anything badly. It was losing because it was doing, extremely well, a version of the job that increasingly nobody needed done that way anymore.

image