IT Support For Your Company (No Pay - No Way)

[robd]

Our company has contracted new IT Support. In the past, we used a guy (for the past 10+ years) who was very accessible and did a great job. He moved out of the area about 8 mths ago, and couldn't give us the usual level of support that we required. We had a significant problem with our main stock/accounting software that was fixed by the new IT company, and on that basis, we signed a 12mth contract with them.

Unfortunately, a MAJOR issued occurred in January when we met with our new IT support to discuss the bi-monthly "health check" of our servers. We were advised that the backup software we were using, was not preferred or recommended by them (Windows Backup, which we had been using for the past 10+ years) and they suggested another software be installed by them at circa $3,000+. On checking the servers on this same day, we were told that one of our backups was not working, and I was advised to reboot that server before I left to go home, and this would probably fix the backup problem.

Next day I come into work to find that our software is corrupt due to Windows Updates that the IT company commenced and the reboot of the server, which I did under their instruction. The last backup that they were able to restore to, was the 6th January which ended up being corrupt due to their incorrect restore procedure and I ended up using my own backup from the 31st December. I spent the Australia Day long weekend in the office manually entering every invoice, credit note, payment, receipt etc. from the hardcopy printout of each day. We were then hit with a $1,200 bill for their attempt to restore.

My problem here is:-

- they physically looked at the server and knew there were no backups
- they started Windows Updates whilst our Accounting/Stock software was running (a feature that our previous IT guy limited to non-business hours when everyone was logged out)
- they advised to re-boot the server knowing there were no backups since the 6th Jan. hoping that it would resolve the backup issue.

I argued the invoice they sent to me and basically was told, that because I wasn't using their preferred backup software, they absolved themselves from any responsibility.

Today I tried to download some software that I needed but the AV software that the new IT company installed, which we have paid upfront 12 mths subscription, wouldn't allow me to do. My previous IT guy has me set up as an administrator on the servers, and also gave me access to disable AV for my purposes when I needed it. I emailed the new IT company for the login and password details so that I could do what I needed to, but was advised that they wouldn't allow me access, and that I would have to tell them what I wanted and that they would do it for me (at their quoted rates).

Is this the way it is now with IT support? i literally cannot even call this company (our support) without being charged.

 

[kamchatsky]

What company is this? Having said that, I am not surprised with the response from IT companies, especially I work for one.

All I can say that your company was lucky to source a reliable IT person who can fixed most if not all things that are not expensive.

 

[JohnK]

I work for an in house IT department.

It is getting worse by the day. Way too much red tape to access IT support resources.

 

[robd]

What company is this? Having said that, I am not surprised with the response from IT companies, especially I work for one.

All I can say that your company was lucky to source a reliable IT person who can fixed most if not all things that are not expensive.

Yes, now we realise how lucky we were to have such a great IT guy. But now we are stuck with no control and cannot do anything without consulting because they will not give us login and password details.

I work for an in house IT department.

It is getting worse by the day. Way too much red tape to access IT support resources.

Exactly. I pretty much do not have any accessibility to anything I used to, even with my minimal IT ability.

I cant even email or phone with any question without being charged.

 

[harvyk]

What is the actual timeline of events?
When did the new IT person take over? Was it in Jan?

Not to put a damper on your outrage, but I've been in the same position as your new IT person, I've taken over from a previous IT person, found the systems was actually in quite a mess (I mean, everything is not hunky dory with your IT if your backups have been failing for many nights on end) and then got caught out trying to fix the problems. Furthermore if you're not running your windows updates, then you are really susceptible to hackers / crackers / viruses and any one of the other nasties out there.

Whilst I'm sure your previous IT support person might have been a nice guy, and really approachable, from the sounds of it, he wasn't exactly doing his job...

 

[robd]

What is the actual timeline of events?
When did the new IT person take over? Was it in Jan?

Not to put a damper on your outrage, but I've been in the same position as your new IT person, I've taken over from a previous IT person, found the systems was actually in quite a mess (I mean, everything is not hunky dory with your IT if your backups have been failing for many nights on end) and then got caught out trying to fix the problems. Furthermore if you're not running your windows updates, then you are really susceptible to hackers / crackers / viruses and any one of the other nasties out there.

Whilst I'm sure your previous IT support person might have been a nice guy, and really approachable, from the sounds of it, he wasn't exactly doing his job...

The new IT company took over in Oct 2013. Their initial assessment reported that we had been provided with good software and hardware from our previous IT guy. The problem occurred on 21st January when they came to discuss the "server health check" which they did on the 3rd January. The last backup was the 6th January. There were no backups on the main server between the 6th Jan and when they came into our office to discuss the results of the "server health check" on the 21st January.

The timeline of events is rock solid. Not sure how you gleaned that the previous IT support guy was not doing his job?

 

[harvyk]

The new IT company took over in Oct 2013. Their initial assessment reported that we had been provided with good software and hardware from our previous IT guy. The problem occurred on 21st January when they came to discuss the "server health check" which they did on the 3rd January. The last backup was the 6th January. There were no backups on the main server between the 6th Jan and when they came into our office to discuss the results of the "server health check" on the 21st January.

The timeline of events is rock solid. Not sure how you gleaned that the previous IT support guy was not doing his job?

Ah, now with the timeline of events, that's a different story. Discussing preferred backup software etc... is something which is usually done within the first week or two of taking on a new client. Not 3 months down the track. Furthermore any failures (and sometime even successes, just so you know something happened) of Backup software should automatically send the IT support person an email, a single nights failure is not a problem, a second nights failure indicates an issue which should be investigated the next day, not 15 days later.

So change my assertion about your previous IT support person, and apply it to the new one...

 

[Robert K]

There are as many ways of setting up a server as there are to skin a cat. I find IT support to be PITA most of the time and expensive.

We use to have a lone IT guy that came in whenever we had issues and set up/built all our servers. Everything worked, but I knew parts weren't 'best practice'. We all had admin access, everyone was happy.

Then parent company decided to network all offices together and have central IT. New server, new backup, new archive, no more admin access, big bills.

But now, if something goes wrong, we have no trouble pointing the finger at them. I guess that's really what you are paying for in the end.

 

[robd]

Ah, now with the timeline of events, that's a different story. Discussing preferred backup software etc... is something which is usually done within the first week or two of taking on a new client. Not 3 months down the track. Furthermore any failures (and sometime even successes, just so you know something happened) of Backup software should automatically send the IT support person an email, a single nights failure is not a problem, a second nights failure indicates an issue which should be investigated the next day, not 15 days later.

So change my assertion about your previous IT support person, and apply it to the new one...

I find it extremely "odd" that the following day in January when they restate their objection to the backup software that has served us well for the last 10+ years, happens to fail overnight.

 

[harvyk]

We all had admin access, everyone was happy.

From an end user point of view, everyone having admin access might seem like a good thing.
From a support point of view, I'd fire any IT support person who did such a thing. Some of the things which "everyone has admin" opens an org up to is accidental data deletion, malicious data deletion, data theft, viruses / malware can do maximum damage, huge surface area for potential attackers (hackers / crackers).

The problem with something like issuing everyone admin access (or other failing to follow best practice cases), is the problems never surface there and then. They typically only surface when it's too late (for example, once backups have failed and no one knew for 15 days like with the OP, the a virus has gotten in and is allowing crackers free access to any and all data on your network without your knowledge)

 

[robd]

There are as many ways of setting up a server as there are to skin a cat. I find IT support to be PITA most of the time and expensive.

We use to have a lone IT guy that came in whenever we had issues and set up/built all our servers. Everything worked, but I knew parts weren't 'best practice'. We all had admin access, everyone was happy.

Then parent company decided to network all offices together and have central IT. New server, new backup, new archive, no more admin access, big bills.

But now, if something goes wrong, we have no trouble pointing the finger at them. I guess that's really what you are paying for in the end.

Totally understand what you are saying here. Unfortunately, we are paying when it is obviously their error too. Their "out clause" is "it is not what we recommended", therefore we are not responsible.

 

[anat0l]

Not sure how you gleaned that the previous IT support guy was not doing his job?

Depends... how well do you actually know your own IT infrastructure.

That said, I have no hesitation in judging your "new" IT support (or lack thereof, rather).

I find IT support to be PITA most of the time and expensive.

Problem is, they shouldn't be. Expensive? Perhaps, because like most service issues, it is a cost base and doesn't generate any income. Whilst you may rely on your IT services, you know that maintaining your computer definitely isn't adding to your bottom line. In larger companies, this viewpoint is often grossly exacerbated, and in many cases you end up with either careless, lacklustre or negligent support to the later detriment of the company.

IT support services could often learn a thing or two about tailoring support for their customers properly, as well as communication.

We use to have a lone IT guy that came in whenever we had issues and set up/built all our servers. Everything worked, but I knew parts weren't 'best practice'. We all had admin access, everyone was happy.

Then parent company decided to network all offices together and have central IT. New server, new backup, new archive, no more admin access, big bills.

But now, if something goes wrong, we have no trouble pointing the finger at them. I guess that's really what you are paying for in the end.

I agree with harvyk on this. For a small enterprise - maybe no more than 10 people or thereabouts on the same physical site - giving everyone admin access may not be a big deal. Once you get much larger than that, it's a big window of exposure to misuse. It also gets pretty damn messy after a while.

If something went wrong anyway of course you're going to point the finger at them. What, you really think you're going to think for a second that you guys did something wrong? Let's not kid ourselves here. (IT support people often know that sometimes it's just someone being careless, but you never tell the client that to their face).

Totally understand what you are saying here. Unfortunately, we are paying when it is obviously their error too. Their "out clause" is "it is not what we recommended", therefore we are not responsible.

And if I had it my way, I'd march to your IT support company and string them up on the rafters by their ears.

If it was a server health problem you were experiencing then a plan should've been put in place to, for example, replace the server. It may have been that the server is on its last legs - hard drives, whatever - but that should've been made quite clear upon the "health check" and subsequent investigation. There may be some capex required to replace the server, but stuffing around for two weeks with no plan and then making a mess up is not the way to go (basically delaying the necessary whilst making a mess in the process, so larger cleanup). Server migration is to IT what minor surgery is to health, but no point stuffing around.

Windows updates are important, but normally they should be scheduled to run outside of office hours unless you switch off all computers during those times, whereupon which normally they will be pushed the first time you start the computer or alternatively installed when you restart / shut down the computer (i.e. shut down, updates installed, computer turns off - you leave the computer alone after step one). Alternatively, they can be delayed until specifically pushed, but you always run the risk of vulnerabilities if you delay the process. That said, updates can install in the background and apart from the "restart nag" (which should be suppressed), why should this interfere with the running of other software? (Files which cannot be locked and updated are scheduled to be updated during the next restart, so that should not affect running software). Also, what kind of software are you trying to install which would require temporary AV disabling? This should be an exception rather than normal.

All in all, looks like your IT company has done a cracking job... that is, they were only successful in making you crack and that's not good - they should all have their heads cracked. Pretty much stuffed around with your backup system and now if they're worth a grain of salt they should fix it up on their own coin.


Having had to deal with IT support both in-house and external before, I've never really come across an unreasonable lot or those who stuffed around. It does help to know a bit of what goes on, so after the first few conversations I think they recognise you as someone who knows you're just not here to make their lives difficult.

 

[harvyk]

I've never really come across an unreasonable lot or those who stuffed around.

I've certainly come across IT companies which are exactly like that. There are certainly cowboys in the industry, there are certainly procrastinators, and there are certain those who love being unreasonable.

 

[robd]

All in all, looks like your IT company has done a cracking job... that is, they were only successful in making you crack and that's not good - they should all have their heads cracked. Pretty much stuffed around with your backup system and now if they're worth a grain of salt they should fix it up on their own coin.

You summed it up perfectly!

 

[JohnK]

Exactly. I pretty much do not have any accessibility to anything I used to, even with my minimal IT ability.

I cant even email or phone with any question without being charged.

We have to log a job if we want assistance from IT support. Even if we are working on urgent issues.

 

[harvyk]

We have to log a job if we want assistance from IT support. Even if we are working on urgent issues.

The job log is actually a pretty important thing, especially for high severity incidents. Apart from ensuring that the invoice going to the client is correct, it also helps identify trends, and systems where there may be a problem which needs to be resolved to prevent further incidents.

For example, you may just simply see that your files went off line 3 times last month, but it could have actually been 3 different reasons (eg 1st time = AD Server failure, 2nd time = DNS Server failure, 3rd time = Switch failure), and as funny as it seems that would not indicate a problem.

But say for instance, over the last 3 months, you have also lost email access and database access in addition to losing access to the files, three different systems in no way connected and the outages where all at different times and yet in each case in was a fault with a certain switch, logging each call properly means that the faulty switch would get properly identified as the cause and plans could be put in place to replace it.

Of course, doing the above is reliant on the IT support staff actually using their logging system correctly. (although anywhere that has implemented ITIL should be doing so)

 

[JohnK]

The job log is actually a pretty important thing, especially for high severity incidents. Apart from ensuring that the invoice going to the client is correct, it also helps identify trends, and systems where there may be a problem which needs to be resolved to prevent further incidents.

Trust me I was not born yesterday. The job log is to cover their @rse to explain why they are incompetent.

We were having timesheet issues last week so I raised a job. Another employee another day or so later commented on my job that they were also having issues. The timesheet issue was resolved the next day and the person commenting on my job was the one asked if everything was now OK.

Who raised the job again? I was totally ignored. I kept my mouth shut and I will use this one as a weapon in future.

 

[anat0l]

Trust me I was not born yesterday. The job log is to cover their @rse to explain why they are incompetent.

We were having timesheet issues last week so I raised a job. Another employee another day or so later commented on my job that they were also having issues. The timesheet issue was resolved the next day and the person commenting on my job was the one asked if everything was now OK.

Who raised the job again? I was totally ignored. I kept my mouth shut and I will use this one as a weapon in future.

The distinction between the operation of your work's IT support versus the office politics should be well drawn.


At our workplace, we also have to log jobs. It all ends up in the same queue anyway, i.e. either via web portal or email, the ticket is created all the same. We could directly call or front up to the technicians, but it's rarely worth it unless it's an absolute emergency, because it's basically queue jumping and it makes everyone's lives more difficult. At least when logging a job, there's a reference to go back to, and you can set a more realistic timeframe.

Of course, there's a maxim in IT support: everyone's ticket is urgent.

From my point of view, there's two theories. One theory is you're not liked at the office, so you were ignored as a matter of politics rather than process.

The second theory is that you raised the issue and it was in line to be fixed, or looked at on a basic level. The second time someone else raised it, IT puts the pieces together and realises that the same problem has arisen in a short amount of time, so either the last fix was ineffective, or this just reaffirms the nature of the problem.

And, I forgot the third theory: your IT support is incompetent.

Overall, job logging is still important. Unless you're a small company where the job log can easily be retained in one brain only (i.e. the only person who does the IT support).

 

[robd]

Trust me I was not born yesterday. The job log is to cover their @rse to explain why they are incompetent.

Ah yes, the ol' job log. The last couple of job log invoices I've received were around 10 pages each and must have taken an hour or so each to write up. They read more like a police interview rather than a summary of the job tasked.

I've obviously missed the updates for the last 10 or so years having the same IT guy all that time, and am way behind the times on job logging. I'm used to receiving an invoice with an attached job log that would say something like, computer not connecting to fax modem, removed and reinstalled X, ran updates, checked, OK.

 

[anat0l]

Ah yes, the ol' job log. The last couple of job log invoices I've received were around 10 pages each and must have taken an hour or so each to write up. They read more like a police interview rather than a summary of the job tasked.

I've obviously missed the updates for the last 10 or so years having the same IT guy all that time, and am way behind the times on job logging. I'm used to receiving an invoice with an attached job log that would say something like, computer not connecting to fax modem, removed and reinstalled X, ran updates, checked, OK.

I must be the same. A 10 page job log would to me suggest an almost complete overhaul or an issue which has taken months to complete.

The job logs and reports usually should be pretty brief and to the point. Not legal prose.