Here at Dysnix, we got used to the most fluid types of cooperation, including co-managed services. Staying flexible is one of our strong sides as a services provider, as our experts are more interested in solving technical problems than fitting in some kind of delivery framework. The vast experience of cooperation with teams crossing cultures, time zones, and product visions tells us that the power and control focus is the most sensitive matter while connecting with existing staff.
In the following paragraphs, we’ll tell you about co-managed IT services delivery, and you’ll 100% find out if it fits your case.
Co-managed IT services represent a hybrid IT management model where an external IT provider collaborates with your in-house IT team to share everything on an agreed basis—responsibilities, expertise, and resources. This arrangement allows businesses to control their digital operations while benefiting from the provider’s specialized skills, cutting-edge tools, and scalability.
Example: A growing retail company with an internal IT team might handle routine tasks like troubleshooting and hardware setup while partnering with the managed IT service provider to cover advanced spheres like cybersecurity, cloud infrastructure optimization, training, mentoring, or 24/7 system monitoring.
Commonly, C-levels perceive any fully managed IT services firm as a black-box provider sharing minimum control. On the other hand, executives might get quickly overwhelmed trying to manage everything with solely inner team resources.
So that’s when co-managed IT solutions get their golden hour to shine.
Let’s start with a comparison to clarify the details; then, we’ll proceed to the cases and best practices.
Aspect | 100% managed service provider (MSP) | Co-managed IT services provider |
---|---|---|
Control | The external provider is exclusively in charge. | Control is shared between the in-house team and the external provider. |
Team structure | Depends on the external provider. | Negotiable; depends on the case. |
Cost structure | Typically a fixed monthly fee for comprehensive services. | Negotiable; depends on the team involved and its skillset. |
Scalability | Highly scalable; limited by the budget. | Scalable, but depends on scaling protocols and processes between the in-house team and the provider. |
Expertise | Access to a wide range of specialized skills and advanced technologies. | Combines in-house context knowledge with external expertise for specialized tasks. |
Institutional knowledge | Limited retention of business-specific knowledge, as the provider operates externally. | Retains institutional knowledge within the in-house team, sharing it with the provider. |
Customization | Services are often standardized but can be tailored to some extent. | Highly customizable, as the in-house team can dictate specific needs and priorities. |
Responsiveness | Often 24/7 support. | Responsiveness depends on the division of responsibilities between the two teams. |
Security | Provider implements and manages needed security measures. | Security is a shared responsibility, requiring alignment between the two teams. |
Implementation speed | Faster implementation of new technologies due to provider expertise and resources. | Implementation speed depends on collaboration and the in-house team’s readiness. |
Dependency | High dependency on the external provider for all IT operations. | Balanced dependency, as the in-house team retains main control and extracts knowledge from the provider. |
Decision flexibility | Limited flexibility, as the provider manages most IT aspects. | High flexibility, as the in-house team can choose which services to outsource. |
Cost efficiency | Cost-effective for businesses without IT staff. | Cost-effective for teams needing to fill specific skill or resource gaps. |
Best for small businesses or organizations without an in-house IT team. It’s ideal for companies looking for a hands-off, cost-effective solution to handle all their IT needs.
Best for mid-sized to large businesses with a native IT team that needs additional support or specialized expertise. It is ideal for companies with a request for flexibility, co-managed IT support, and improved IT capabilities while maintaining internal oversight and focus on control.
We won’t bother you with some trivial pros and cons related to the topic and will provide you with only those points that are meaningful to you as C-level executives.
Teams working with co-managed IT services have reported significant improvements in operational efficiency. According to Canalys’ MSP Landscape Report 2024, businesses using co-managed IT services saw a 35% reduction in response times for IT errors.
This is thanks to the harmony achieved between internal teams’ business knowledge and co-MSPs’ technical expertise, which accelerates problem resolution and innovation. Achieving such a balance might be a challenge for both teams, but once everything is set and everyone gets used to one another, you’ll get flawless results in the efficiency of the whole team.
Co-managed IT services can lead to substantial cost savings. Businesses utilizing these models can reduce their operational expenses by 20–25%. What a warming percentage of savings to achieve, right?
The integration of “science-saturated” technologies like AI and automation may skyrocket your co-managed IT adoption. According to Reboot Inc., co-managed IT services help teams to utilize tech-savvy tools quicker without the long education of internal staff or hiring new expensive fellows.
This fosters innovation and ensures that organizations stay competitive in a rapidly changing digital environment.
Co-managed models create chances for internal teams to upskill by working alongside external experts. This collaborative environment enhances knowledge transfer and long-term retention of specialized skills.
For Dysnix engineers, it’s one of the most pleasant processes to train and upskill our fellow colleagues from the in-house teams. Sharing our expertise feels like the right thing to make the whole project successful.
While co-managed IT services offer flexibility, they can also introduce governance challenges. According to Gartner, 40% of teams using co-managed IT services reported difficulties in saying who leads who and sharing responsibilities between internal and external staff.
This misalignment can lead to conflicts, conflicts lead to accusations, and that’s the end, say bye to efficient collaboration.
Security is always a favorite DLC in a co-managed IT game. While providers often bring advanced cybersecurity capabilities, the lack of synchronized protocols between internal and external teams can create vulnerabilities. What’s hiding here more is the cultural disruption between teams, and that’s where you should work first to establish steady security operations and processes for everyone.
Unclear security ownership is also a problem in co-managed setups that can lead to breaches. So robust contractual agreements and trust are a must for you as a co-managing contractor.
Co-managed IT services can sometimes lead to vendor lock-in, limiting flexibility and increasing long-term costs. Proprietary tools, overreliance on a single cloud provider, or similar decisions introduced by managed services can be replaced or prevented in most cases.
By the way, Dysnix is famous for making projects vendor-independent and extra autonomous while saving all the same benefits.
Think of applying co-managed IT service as enjoying the perfect blend: your in-house team provides the foundation, while the external provider adds the specialized ingredients to create a robust, high-performing IT ecosystem.
By nurturing collaboration and clearly defining roles, you can ensure your IT operations are not just functional but transformative. At the end of the day, the right IT model isn’t just about solving today’s challenges—it’s about building a resilient, future-ready organization.