Information about SharePoint, Microsoft 365, Azure, Mobility and Productivity from the Computer Information Agency
You change the way Enter works when you write a message in Teams.
Select Settings | Chats and channels | When writing a message, press Enter to and then make your selection!
Personally, I don’t want Enter to send the message I want it to create a new line. You?
One of the biggest blockers I see with Copilot adoption isn’t cost.
It’s confusion.
Too many organisations think Copilot is something you buy, flip a switch on, and magically productivity goes up. Then they see the Microsoft 365 Copilot licence price and either panic… or over‑hype it internally and guarantee disappointment.
Here’s the part most people miss:
Copilot Chat is already included with Microsoft 365.
No extra licence. No commitment. No risk. [support.mi…rosoft.com]
And it’s the best place to start evaluating Copilot—as long as you set the right expectations.
Copilot Chat is a secure, enterprise-grade AI chat experience that comes with eligible Microsoft 365 business plans. It’s available through the Copilot app, browser, and inside Microsoft 365 surfaces. [support.mi…rosoft.com]
Think of it as:
It’s excellent for:
What it doesn’t do is magically understand your tenant.
And that’s where expectations matter.
Copilot Chat does not have access to your Microsoft 365 data by default.
That means:
Those capabilities require a Microsoft 365 Copilot licence. [support.mi…rosoft.com]
This is the mistake I see over and over again:
“We tried Copilot and it wasn’t very impressive.”
No—you tried Copilot Chat and expected Microsoft 365 Copilot.
They are related, but they are not the same thing.
Even with those limitations, Copilot Chat is a brilliant on‑ramp to AI adoption.
Why?
Because Copilot success has very little to do with licences—and everything to do with behaviour.
Copilot Chat lets organisations:
All before spending a dollar on add‑on licensing.
For MSPs, this is gold. You can:
Microsoft 365 Copilot is where AI stops being a chat tool and becomes a workflow tool.
With the paid licence, Copilot:
In short:
Copilot Chat helps you think.
Microsoft 365 Copilot helps you do. [support.mi…rosoft.com]
But that power only delivers value if users already know how to work with AI.
The smartest Copilot projects I’ve seen all follow the same path:
Copilot Chat isn’t a “cut‑down demo”.
It’s a training ground.
Use it properly, and when you do buy licences, Copilot won’t feel expensive—it’ll feel obvious.
And that’s how Copilot adoption should work.
Let’s get something uncomfortable out of the way.
If your MSP feels hard…
If growth feels heavy…
If the thought of “scaling” makes you tired rather than excited…
The problem probably isn’t your tools, your stack, or your tactics.
It’s that your business is out of alignment with you.
For years, MSPs have been fed the same lie:
If it’s not hard, you’re not doing it properly.
Long hours.
Always-on availability.
Endless meetings.
Constant pressure to sell, hire, scale, document, standardise, repeat.
Congratulations — you’ve built yourself a prison. And you’re the warden.
Most MSPs eventually hit what I call the pain line.
That point where:
You don’t quit, because the business “works”.
You don’t change, because change feels risky.
So you push harder.
That’s when MSP owners burn out — not because they’re weak, but because they’re misaligned.
And here’s the key insight most MSPs miss:
You will never deliberately grow into pain.
If growth feels like more stress, more chaos, more pressure… you’ll subconsciously cap your own business. You’ll stall, plateau, or self‑sabotage — and then blame the market.
There’s a massive difference between:
Just because:
…doesn’t mean they should work for you.
MSPs are notorious for copying business models without asking a basic question:
“Would I still want to run this business in 10 or 20 years?”
If the answer is “not like this”… then something needs to change.
Most MSPs obsess over:
Almost none spend serious time designing the business they work in every day.
That’s the real product.
Your MSP should fit you like a glove — your personality, your strengths, your energy, your season of life.
If you’re an introvert forced into constant sales calls, that’s friction.
If you hate meetings but built a meeting‑heavy culture, that’s friction.
If you love deep technical work but spend all day managing people, that’s friction.
Friction is expensive. Not just financially — emotionally.
Here’s the good news:
There’s probably nothing wrong with your MSP.
It’s just built for a version of you that no longer exists.
Your life changes.
Your energy changes.
Your priorities change.
But most MSPs never update the business model — they just keep tolerating it.
And tolerance is dangerous. It turns into resentment. Then burnout.
Try this brutally honest exercise:
Make two lists.
List 1: The parts of your MSP you genuinely love
The work that energises you
The days where work feels like play
List 2: The parts you hate
The things you tolerate
The work that drains you but “has to be done”
Now ask yourself:
Why does my calendar still contain so much of List 2?
This isn’t about doing less work.
It’s about doing the right work.
Let’s be clear: “easy” doesn’t mean small, lazy, or unambitious.
It means:
When your MSP is aligned, effort feels lighter — not because you’re doing less, but because you’re not fighting yourself.
That’s when growth accelerates. That’s when creativity returns. That’s when clients feel the difference.
People follow energy. They buy from clarity. They trust alignment.
So here’s the uncomfortable challenge:
Stop asking, “How do I scale this?”
Start asking, “Do I even want to scale it this way?”
Because building an MSP that fits everyone else’s idea of success — but not yours — is the fastest way to hate the thing you worked so hard to build.
You don’t need another framework.
You don’t need another tool.
You don’t need to push harder.
You need alignment.
And once you have that, growth stops feeling like punishment — and starts feeling inevitable.
I watched a video this week that stuck with me far longer than it probably should have. It wasn’t flashy. It wasn’t hyped. It wasn’t trying to sell me the “AI will save us all” story.
Instead, it focused on something far more uncomfortable: the guilt felt by people who build AI systems that lead to job losses.
And honestly? That discomfort is exactly what we should be leaning into right now.
The AI conversation is broken because it’s usually framed at the extremes. Either AI is an unstoppable monster coming for everyone’s job, or it’s a magical productivity fairy that somehow improves everything without consequence. Both positions are lazy. Both avoid responsibility.
The truth — as usual — is messier.
Let’s get one thing clear early: AI does not make decisions. Humans do.
AI doesn’t walk into a boardroom and announce redundancies. AI doesn’t restructure teams. AI doesn’t decide that headcount is the fastest way to protect margins.
Executives do that.
Business owners do that.
Leaders do that.
Blaming “the technology” is a convenient way to outsource accountability. It allows people to say, “We had no choice”, when what they really mean is, “We chose efficiency over people, and we don’t want to own that.”
The guilt described in this video isn’t actually about AI. It’s about power without ownership.
This part isn’t new. Automation has been displacing tasks — and entire roles — for centuries. Spreadsheets replaced ledger clerks. Email replaced postal rooms. Cloud computing replaced on‑prem everything teams.
What is new is the speed and scope.
AI doesn’t just replace manual labour. It replaces cognitive effort. Drafting, analysing, summarising, responding, triaging — the very tasks many knowledge workers believed were “safe”.
That’s confronting. It should be.
But pretending we can stop it is fantasy. The real question is: what do we do with the leverage it gives us?
For MSPs, this conversation isn’t theoretical. You’re already living it.
Every Copilot deployment, every automation script, every agent you roll out reduces friction — and often reduces billable effort. That’s not a bug. That’s the future.
The mistake is thinking the win is “doing the same work with fewer people”.
The real win is doing better work with the same people.
More proactive security.
More strategic advice.
More business insight.
More human judgment where it actually matters.
If your only AI strategy is cost‑cutting, then yes — guilt is probably appropriate.
The developers in this video are asking themselves the wrong question: “Should we build this?”
The better question is: “How will this be used?”
AI is a multiplier. It amplifies intent. Good leaders will use it to elevate teams. Bad leaders will use it to extract value and discard people.
The technology doesn’t decide which path you’re on. You do.
And for MSPs advising clients? This is where your role becomes critical. You’re no longer just implementing tools — you’re shaping outcomes. You’re influencing how businesses adopt AI, what they automate, and what they preserve.
That’s not a technical responsibility. It’s a moral one.
If AI makes you uneasy, good. That means you’re thinking beyond features and licences.
Progress without reflection is how we end up with systems that optimise everything except humanity.
AI isn’t the enemy. But unexamined efficiency absolutely is.
So instead of asking whether AI will replace jobs, maybe we should be asking something harder:
What kind of organisations are we choosing to build with it?
Because that answer won’t be written by algorithms.
It’ll be written by leaders.
And MSPs will be right there with them, whether they like it or not.
The slides from this month’s webinar are available at:
and the video recording is also up on Youtube here:
Video URL – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1no1Sif3LVs
Watch out for next month’s webinar.
If you’ve been paying attention to the headlines, you’d be forgiven for thinking AI is about to wipe out half the knowledge economy. Faster answers. Instant content. Automation everywhere.
And yet, when you look closely, something else is happening.
AI isn’t eliminating value.
It’s making shallow value painfully obvious.
For MSPs, this matters more than most people realise.
Because the MSP model has always sat at the intersection of technology and judgement. Tools have never been the differentiator. Thinking has.
There are six very human capabilities that still outperform machines. Not technical skills. Not certifications. But ways of thinking and behaving. And when you translate those into an MSP context, they become a pretty blunt warning:
If your business is built on “doing tasks”, AI will hollow it out.
If it’s built on judgement, taste, and responsibility, AI will amplify it.
Let’s break that down.
AI is incredible at answers. That’s the point.
But MSPs don’t win by having answers. They win by asking better questions than their clients know to ask.
“What’s the cheapest backup?” is an answer problem.
“What are we actually trying to protect, and why?” is a question problem.
The uncomfortable truth is that many MSPs trained themselves to be answer vending machines. Ticket in, solution out. AI will do that faster, cheaper, and without burnout.
The MSPs who survive are the ones who can slow the conversation down, challenge assumptions, and reframe the problem entirely. That’s not automation-resistant. That’s automation-proof.
AI can generate endless options: architectures, policies, scripts, proposals, documentation.
What it can’t do is decide what’s good.
Good enough for this client.
Appropriate for this risk profile.
Aligned with this business reality.
That’s taste. And in a world drowning in AI‑generated mediocrity, taste becomes a filter clients are willing to pay for.
MSPs who develop strong opinions, clear standards, and consistent design thinking will stand out. The ones who proudly say “we don’t do it that way” will win more trust than those who say “yes” to everything.
AI encourages speed. MSPs have historically rewarded caution.
The best operators are learning to combine both.
They ship at 80%.
They test with real clients.
They refine relentlessly.
Whether it’s service offerings, internal processes, or security baselines, iteration matters more than ever. AI accelerates drafts. Humans improve outcomes.
MSPs who wait until something is perfect will be outpaced by those willing to learn in public.
AI is excellent at producing parts.
Humans are better at assembling wholes.
MSPs don’t add value by listing tools. They add value by composing solutions that make sense together: security, compliance, user experience, business constraints, and human behaviour.
Anyone can deploy products. Few can design systems that actually work in the messiness of real organisations.
That synthesis – pulling threads together into something coherent – is not a technical skill. It’s a strategic one.
The old hero MSP was the one who could do everything themselves.
The modern MSP wins by knowing what should be done by AI, what should be done by people, and what should never be automated at all.
That’s allocation.
Time, attention, tools, staff, AI systems – all aimed deliberately. Not reactively.
MSPs who treat AI as “just another tool” will underuse it. MSPs who treat it as an intelligence multiplier will restructure their businesses around it.
AI has no conscience.
No accountability.
No stake in the outcome.
That burden falls squarely on the MSP.
Privacy decisions. Security trade‑offs. Risk acceptance. Truthful advice when the easy path is more profitable.
As AI amplifies impact, integrity stops being a soft value and becomes a leadership skill.
Clients don’t just need faster answers. They need someone willing to say “no”, push back, and protect them from bad decisions – even when AI confidently suggests otherwise.
AI isn’t coming for MSPs.
It’s coming for undifferentiated thinking.
The future belongs to MSPs who lean harder into what makes them human: judgement, taste, curiosity, responsibility, and the courage to think rather than just respond.
When the world gets more artificial, the smartest move an MSP can make is to get more human.
And that’s not a threat.
That’s an opportunity.
There’s a pattern I keep seeing in this industry.
A new idea, tool, or capability appears. Everyone rushes to talk about it. Vendors race to slap it on a slide. MSPs add it to a stack diagram. And almost immediately, the conversation gets stuck at the shallow end.
Access is not advantage. Capability is not leverage. And owning the tool is not the same as changing the outcome.
That distinction matters more now than it ever has.
They have a thinking problem.
Microsoft Copilot, AI tooling, automation platforms, security frameworks—none of these are scarce anymore. They’re being bundled, discounted, or handed out as “included value” at an alarming rate.
Which means the old MSP reflex kicks in:
“Great, we’ll add this to what we already do.”
And that’s exactly where things break.
Because if you use new tools to reinforce old behaviour, you don’t move forward. You just get louder, busier, and more replaceable.
The uncomfortable truth is this:
Most MSPs already know what the tools can do.
They’ve watched the demos. They’ve read the blogs. They’ve played with the prompts.
What they haven’t done is decide what they’re trying to change.
Tools amplify intent. They don’t create it.
If your intent is:
Then AI just helps you do those things faster.
But if your intent is:
Then the same tools produce very different results.
From a client’s perspective, AI is already invisible.
They don’t care that you use Copilot. They care whether:
This is where many MSPs still get it wrong.
They position AI as a feature.
Clients experience it as a by‑product.
And by the time you’re explaining the feature, you’re already late.
The biggest mistake MSPs make with modern tooling is trying to bolt it on instead of re‑architecting the workflow.
They ask:
“How do we use Copilot in what we already do?”
Instead of:
“What should no longer exist because Copilot exists?”
That second question is where leverage lives.
If nothing gets removed, nothing meaningful has changed.
The most effective MSPs I see right now aren’t shouting about AI.
They’re:
From the outside, it looks like calm. From the inside, it’s ruthless focus.
That’s the real signal clients notice:
“Things just feel easier when we work with you.”
Not:
“Wow, you use a lot of tools.”
Let’s be honest.
Redesigning how you work is uncomfortable. Letting go of billable‑looking activities feels risky. Removing process feels like loss before it feels like gain.
So most MSPs compromise. They adopt the tool… …but protect the old model.
And then they wonder why nothing really changes.
Progress doesn’t come from better inputs. It comes from better choices about what no longer deserves your time.
If you’re an MSP reading this, here’s the only question worth asking:
What would we stop doing if we truly trusted these tools?
Not next year. Not after more training. Not once “the market is ready”.
Now.
Because the MSPs who answer that question honestly aren’t waiting for permission. They’re quietly building distance.
And by the time everyone else catches up,
the gap won’t be technical.
It’ll be structural.
There’s a short video doing the rounds at the moment that a lot of people are nodding along to.
Not because it’s packed with new information.
Not because it introduces some breakthrough idea.
But because it quietly exposes something most MSPs would rather not look at too closely.
We’re very good at having things.
We’re not nearly as good at using them properly.
And no, this isn’t another “AI will change everything” post. It’s about something more uncomfortable than that.
It’s about intent.
Talk to almost any MSP today and you’ll hear a familiar list:
On paper, the stack looks impressive.
In reality?
Most of it is sitting there like gym equipment in January.
Owned.
Rarely used properly.
Almost never used deliberately.
The video’s real value isn’t what it shows — it’s what it implies: tools don’t create leverage. Decisions do.
Here’s the trap MSPs fall into:
“We’ve deployed it, so we’re using it.”
No, you’re not.
You’re exposed to it.
Leverage only happens when a tool meaningfully changes one of three things:
If none of those shift, the tool is just decoration.
Copilot that drafts emails you’d write anyway?
Nice. Not leverage.
Automation that still needs babysitting?
Helpful. Not leverage.
Security tooling that generates alerts nobody reads?
Expensive. Definitely not leverage.
What the video quietly highlights is this:
Most people don’t struggle with access to capability. They struggle with changing how they think.
MSPs love new products because products don’t demand introspection.
But leverage does.
Leverage forces uncomfortable questions:
That’s the part most MSPs skip.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth.
If two MSPs have access to the same tools, the one that wins isn’t the one with the better stack.
It’s the one with the clearer intent.
One MSP uses Copilot to “help staff write faster”. Another redesigns service delivery so first‑pass responses, documentation, and reporting are largely machine‑assisted — and humans step in where judgement matters.
Same licence.
Very different business.
One MSP adds another security platform. Another uses the platforms they already own to reduce noise, tighten scope, and clearly articulate risk to the client.
Same technology.
Different outcomes.
They’re busy. They’re licensed. They’re “doing AI”.
And yet… nothing really changes.
Margins don’t improve. Staff are still stretched. Clients don’t magically become easier.
Because activity has replaced design.
The video doesn’t give you a roadmap — and that’s the point. It’s not about copying what someone else is doing. It’s about recognising that leverage is intentional, not accidental.
Not:
“What tool should we add next?”
But:
“What outcome do we want this tool to fundamentally change?”
If you can’t answer that clearly, the tool won’t save you. It’ll just make you busier.
The gap between MSPs who thrive and MSPs who stall is getting wider. Not because of access to technology — but because of how deliberately they use it.
The video is just a mirror.
What you see in it depends entirely on how honestly you’re willing to look.
CIAOPS 