Managed vs in-house / Before you post the job
The real choice is rarely “managed or in-house.”
Most small Canadian teams are not choosing between two extremes. They are choosing how to split coverage, expertise, and continuity across a hire, a managed service, or both—and each option splits them differently.
Lire cette page en françaisFrame the decision
One person cannot be the whole plan.
A single in-house hire can understand your business deeply, but is also a single point of failure: vacation, illness, and turnover all stop being abstract risks the day they happen to your only IT person. A managed service solves continuity well but starts without your business context. Most teams end up somewhere between the two—this page compares the extremes so the middle is easier to evaluate.
Compare the trade-offs
The same five questions, answered two different ways.
| Decision factor | An in-house hire | A managed service |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage during absence | Depends on one person’s calendar | Continues when one individual is unavailable |
| Range of expertise | As broad as one person’s background | Draws on a team’s accumulated experience |
| Business context | Deep and immediate | Built deliberately during onboarding and scoping |
| Cost structure | Salary, benefits, training, and tools—fixed | A published per-user rate that scales with headcount |
| Response to growth | Requires hiring again to add capacity | Capacity is part of what is being purchased |
These are general patterns, not a guarantee for your situation. Actual cost and coverage still depend on the same things that shape any managed IT number—see what shapes the price .
Which tends to fit
The signal is rarely company size alone.
In-house tends to fitOrganizations where IT decisions are inseparable from daily operations, or where a role needs constant physical presence the business cannot do without.
Managed tends to fitTeams that need broad coverage and continuity more than they need one person to always be in the building, and that can define a written scope.
Before you decide
Answer these before comparing candidates or providers.
The honest version of this decision starts with your own operation, not a vendor’s pitch. The readiness guide can help organize the answer.
- Does IT work require someone physically present most days, or mostly remote-solvable?
- What happens today when your one IT contact is unreachable for a week?
- Is the real need broad, steady coverage, or deep expertise in one system?
- Would a written managed scope cover what currently depends on institutional memory?
The blended option
Co-managed IT is not a compromise. It is a third option.
An existing internal IT lead does not have to choose between doing everything alone and being replaced. A co-managed arrangement can add coverage and capacity around a defined boundary, while your team keeps architecture, policy, and priority decisions.
See the published CAD starting pointsNext step
Turn your IT context into a clear scope.
A scope conversation covers your team, Microsoft 365, devices, vendors, and responsibilities to transfer. You leave with the scope questions that need answers—without sharing secrets.
Discuss your IT scope