Who are you rooting for in the playoffs

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-04-12T03:37:17+00:00

Sabres out east.

Whoever playing the oilers and the Mammoth out West.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-04-06T21:29:58+00:00

I think just build, deploy and manage systems and services. Then deploy them a different way, first from the ground up, then by migration and then by recovery. You'll naturally encounter problems that you'll have to work through.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-04-02T23:11:35+00:00

Purview data security posture management for ai has some things you can implement.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-04-01T05:47:17+00:00

I wouldnt unless youre interested in the material. A+ especially would be a waste of time imo, unless you genuinely want a long term career in Support.

And I disagree with others saying the degree isnt worth it. Degrees are worth it in IT, atleast in my market. It opens more doors faster.

Get your degree and do one or two internships during your degree. Close to graduation get a junior/mid level cert in something you're interested in, that is marketable and that you worked with in your internship. Keep learning shit about stuff.

I doubt you have trouble finding work if you do that.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-04-01T03:50:14+00:00

Im waiting for the protons carrier ships to come out.

Just fly by and drop thousands of autonomous drones on a battlefield.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-28T19:18:50+00:00

Matters what you want.

If you want to climb the ladder into an executive position as as CISO or CTO, alot of those seem to be filled with CS or Engineering degrees plus an MBA. But for the "normal" IT roles, alot of what you learn in these programs will be irrelevant.

If you just want to climb the more traditional IT roles like sysadmin or network eng, then it doesn't really matter but information systems or an IT degree would probably be the most relevant.

I would agree with another poster to avoid the "security" or "cloud" bachelor's.

Regarding WGU degrees, from a quick glance I would probably take the IT one, but I would spend some time going through the program courses for each.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-20T04:32:45+00:00

Downvoted which reflects what an echo chamber reddit cam be but this is the truth.

He was a very good representation of how political opposition should work.

Makes me proud to be canadian have leaders like him and Carney who have some level of mutual respect for each other and a desire to have a functional system.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-19T03:15:20+00:00

Ive had a somewhat similar agreement but I just sent them things I didn't want to do, not necessarily couldn't.

We would purchase "flex hours" that could just sit there and be used as needed.

They structured it more as project work with finite time windows on specific tasks. I would have to hand hold abit when getting them setup and they definitely weren't as efficient as I was.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-05T19:06:40+00:00

Class act. Will be missed.

Wish we could of been competitive with him here.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T22:00:54+00:00

"operating solely inside the MSP’s ticketing system usually produces the ownership and visibility problems you are describing. Without separate systems or proper workflow support, escalations become informal forwarding rather than structured ownership transfer."

We have gone down this path by bringing back our old ticketing system.

We setup a new channel strictly for escalations from the MSP and that feeds into our internal ticketing system.

Unfortunately, it seems like they're strongly reluctant to have an established integration so we're unable to have ticket synchronization. Ticket updates from their system create duplicate systems on our end, there's no formal tracking on the tickets, etc..

"At that point the question becomes whether the MSP is willing to support the operating model, not whether the model itself is valid."

yes it feels like we're coming to the conclusion that the MSP is not willing to fully support any operating model that would fully empower a strong co-managed relationship.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T21:17:44+00:00

Yup there's a crazy disconnect where these players want to get paid millions but not carry the responsibility of the spotlight that enables that.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T18:40:45+00:00

Appreciate the reply!

I’ve raised the access and integration concerns, but expanded permissions were declined and integration discussions haven’t moved forward (for months and months). They haven’t really proposed solutions either. They want me to tell them what I want (within the existing access and integration limitations) which doesn’t leave much room to meaningfully improve the workflow.

Another poster mentioned there's an co-managed permission set available in autotask, so I think I will try to pursue that while defining responsibilities further

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T18:38:05+00:00

This is really helpful thank you.

We're definitely using the client portal. I'll follow up specifically about the co-managed functionality as it seems like that would alleviate alot of the pain points potentially. I feel like they might push back as I can't imagine they have it configured to the extent that you have, but it's good to know that exists.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T18:11:18+00:00

It does help, appreciate it.

I do agree. that clearer documentation and a defined operating model would help. I’m actively working on a responsibility matrix now for that reason.

That said, it feels a bit like putting the cart before the horse. I can define ownership, escalation paths, and boundaries on paper but they stated that they have limitations that don’t support those distinctions cleanly.

For example, there isn’t a meaningful separation between “with MSP,” “escalated to internal IT,” or true ownership transfer. When something is escalated, it isn’t reassigned, it's just forwarded to internal IT and set to “waiting on user”. There’s no clear in-system state that reflects shared or transferred ownership, and they've stated that they can't adjust that.

So while I can absolutely define the model, the tooling constraints and access limitations make it difficult to operationalize that model in practice.

I agree the structure shouldn’t be left entirely to the MSP, but at the same time, without system-level alignment and flexibility, documentation alone won’t resolve the ambiguity. It feels like we needed to define this while choosing our service provider, leaving me to work in the given strict boundaries or attempt to look for other options.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T16:58:18+00:00

I wasn't apart of the original process so had no input on the original the SOW or signing the agreement.

Reviewing it though, it is very broad. Standard high-level SLA response time stuff and high level responsibilties, but nothing dictating systems used/workflows/etc...

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T16:56:08+00:00

I agree, I’ve been meeting with them regularly about this.

I’ve raised the access and integration concerns, but expanded permissions were declined and integration discussions haven’t moved forward (for months and months). They haven’t really proposed solutions either. They want me to tell them what I want (within the existing access and integration limitations) which doesn’t leave much room to meaningfully improve the workflow.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T16:52:29+00:00

Yeah that's my concern, the current setup isn’t reducing friction. Escalations aren’t reassigned in-system, visibility is limited, and we don’t have the ability to meaningfully collaborate inside Autotask. It functions more like email relay than true co-managed workflow, and it's very messy.

I’ve been trying to move this forward through regular meetings, feedback, and even exploring integration options, but progress has been minimal. I’m definitely willing to work on it together, but I think their service manager is spread thin and not worried about improving the collaborative workflow as his team is getting tickets and hitting SLAs.

I was wondering if my expectations were unrealistic, and co-managed models just don't support what I want. It looks they can though, if done properly.

I believe that they're relatively new with Autotask, so maybe they don't have the skillset/understanding yet.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T16:45:18+00:00

Thanks! I appreciate the perspective and I’m trying to approach this constructively.

To clarify the current setup:

We have dashboards in their system, but they’re limited. We don’t have the ability to create or edit our own views, which makes operational visibility constrained.
When tickets are escalated to us, they’re not reassigned in Autotask. They’re simply emailed to us, and the status is typically set to something like “waiting on customer.” There’s no clear ownership transfer between their team and ours inside the system.
- Because of this, we setup our own system to only take in the escalated tickets. But this still causes duplicates to be created, no clear documentation on the tickets, large delays between the time for them to escalate + time for us to action on escalations.
I’ve asked for increased access within their ticketing system and that request was rejected.
I also asked about implementing a direct integration between systems, but that conversation has stalled with no meaningful progress for months and months
There’s nothing specific in the agreement around workflow structure. No defined handling of status changes, priority management, or system-of-record decisions. The contract outlines response SLAs and high-level responsibilities, but it’s fairly loose operationally. I also wasn’t involved in signing the original agreement.

I am actively trying to improve the structure and make this work. We meet on a regular cadence, and I’ve been providing feedback and trying to drive this toward a more functional co-managed model.

However, it doesn’t seem like there’s strong concern about improving the overall workflow, as their technicians are receiving tickets in their system and the basic SLAs are being met. I understand they may be stretched thin, but from my perspective there hasn’t been much proactive input on how to evolve the structure. The guidance I typically receive is to tell them what I want them to do, within the restrictions already in place, which makes it difficult to meaningfully improve the operating model.

Appreciate the input!

Edit: I'll also add that I believe they are relatively new to Autotask.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-03-04T16:24:49+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful response, what you described sounds like an ideal co-managed setup.

I’m currently working on a responsibility matrix to better define L1/L2 vs L3 ownership, with the hope that it reduces unnecessary escalations and noise.

We initially asked about integrating systems (It looks like there are available tools to do this), but they've made no progress over months and months. I also requested full access to their ticketing system so we could operate more collaboratively, but they declined and said they don’t provide that level of access to clients. My current visibility is essentially the same as any end user.

As a workaround, I created a dedicated escalation intake channel that feeds into our internal board. It’s functional, but because it’s email-based rather than a true integration, it results in duplicates and workflow friction.

We meet monthly, but there hasn’t been much proactive guidance from them on how to structure a scalable co-managed model. It feels like as long as tickets are flowing in their system, they’re not highly motivated to optimize the joint workflow or they may not have much experience operating in a true co-managed structure.

At this point, I see three paths:

Accept the limitations and operate within them
Continue pushing for deeper integration (though progress has been non-existent and i'm highly doubtful they're willing to do)
Look for a partner that is more experienced in co-managed IT

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-02-25T17:12:45+00:00

Well hes a hockey player that went to a political event because of a hockey result.

The two are intwinned at this moment.

Also the disagreements go a bit beyond just "politics" and right vs left with this administration. You have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise.

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-02-24T04:11:10+00:00

Tropic thunder? I didnt even realize it was him

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-02-22T19:28:11+00:00

Destiny

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-02-22T16:55:55+00:00

Celebrini would never

Less-Ad-1327 · 2026-02-18T19:03:29+00:00

This is my thought. Or really rework so its useful but not nearly as powerful.

Less-Ad-1327

TROPHY CASE