エピソード

  • Insightful and Workflow Analytics: Measuring Activity vs. Actual Value for MSPs

    Insightful and Workflow Analytics: Measuring Activity vs. Actual Value for MSPs
    2026/10/02
    The episode highlights a structural gap between projected AI-driven revenue in the channel and the concrete operational changes needed to capture measurable ROI. Industry surveys from Informa MSP 501, McKinsey, and PwC consistently show that while AI adoption rates among managed service providers (MSPs) are high, few organizations have restructured workflows or business models around AI. The focus remains on superficial activity tracking rather than genuine business transformation.The MSP 501 survey found 57% of providers expect significant AI revenue growth, with 91% reporting some level of adoption. However, McKinsey’s analysis, as presented by IHL Group, shows only 11% of companies have comprehensively rebuilt processes around AI, with a minority of those realizing clear benefits. PwC’s CEO survey aligns, with over half of respondents seeing no substantive financial returns from AI unless it is extensively integrated beyond the user level.Products like Insightful workforce analytics are now entering MSP portfolios, offering discounted access to AI usage tracking tools. Yet data from Visier and the OECD warn that monitoring software can promote superficial compliance—about half of workers admit to overstating AI usage, and most lack control over the data collected. The OECD also finds that this monitoring is often embedded in standard business software rather than dedicated AI platforms.For MSPs, the risk is prioritizing activity measurement over outcome-based change. Vendors promote usage reports, but these often reward appearances rather than operational improvement. Meaningful results depend on redesigning workflows and measuring actual process improvements—not merely collecting tool usage statistics. Before offering AI usage metrics to clients, MSPs should validate the effectiveness of workflow changes internally to avoid incentivizing unproductive patterns.00:00 Forecasting AI, Skipping The Redesign 04:06 When Usage Stands In For Results06:56 The Usage Meter Hits Your Catalog10:46 Why Do We Care? Supported by: Mailprotector Pax8NinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • Brian J. Weiss: TechStack, Tenant Control, and Redefining PSA Ownership for MSPs

    Brian J. Weiss: TechStack, Tenant Control, and Redefining PSA Ownership for MSPs
    2026/10/05
    The episode highlights a structural shift toward MSPs considering custom-built operational core systems on enterprise platforms, rather than relying purely on traditional packaged PSA (Professional Services Automation) vendors. This approach is illustrated by ITECH Solutions’ decision to migrate from a legacy PSA system—augmented by multiple third-party tools—to a platform built on Microsoft Dynamics, leveraging TechStack as a custom layer for MSP functionality.A key development discussed is ITECH Solutions’ experience with the limitations of existing PSAs. According to Brian J. Weiss, the lack of mature APIs and aging software architectures led to workflow inefficiencies and cumbersome tool proliferation. By selecting Microsoft Dynamics and partnering with TechStack, ITECH Solutions aimed to build a purpose-built, role-based system without maintaining a full in-house development team. Weiss described this as a hybrid model: Dynamics provides the core enterprise environment, TechStack develops the MSP-focused PSA features, and ITECH Solutions manages its own customizations, all within their own Microsoft tenant.Supporting details reinforce the complexity and risk profile of this approach. Customization introduces three operational layers: Microsoft’s base (with ongoing feature releases), TechStack’s PSA-specific additions, and further MSP-specific custom work, all requiring maintenance and version management. The cost structure relies on Microsoft partner licensing and as-yet-undetermined pricing for TechStack’s development and support. While automation and workflow adherence are key selling points, Weiss noted that operational maturity—including process standardization and thorough documentation—is a prerequisite for success with this model; smaller MSPs or those with incomplete processes may face difficulties replicating the approach.For MSPs and IT leaders, the implications revolve around vendor dependency, operational complexity, and governance oversight. Relying on multiple layers (Microsoft, TechStack, and in-house customization) adds resilience against single-vendor lock-in but shifts accountability for support, updates, and platform stability. Contractual risk increases as MSPs must track not just vendor but also tenant-layer modifications and integrations. While this structure offers customization and data control, it requires MSPs to have strong internal processes and governance frameworks to avoid operational drift or unintended consequences from layered system changes.Supported by:ScalePadTimeZestNinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    25 分
  • Usage-Based AI Pricing: Why MSPs Must Own Consumption Records Before Renewals

    Usage-Based AI Pricing: Why MSPs Must Own Consumption Records Before Renewals
    2026/10/06
    Vendors are shifting to usage-based billing for enterprise AI tools, creating information and contract risk as consumption and related costs become less predictable for buyers. Microsoft’s change to Microsoft 365 Copilot Business licenses—sold through the Cloud Solution Provider program—illustrates this, as billing now includes a metered component tied directly to user activity instead of just fixed seat pricing.From November 2nd, each new Copilot license carries a $10 per-user monthly spending default, adjustable by the customer. This applies to both standalone and bundled licenses, with usage covering features like Copilot Cowork and related APIs. Microsoft frames this design as a way to promote adoption through reduced friction and partner incentives, but research by McKinsey shows overall AI spend is increasing for buyers, even as per-unit prices drop.Other industries show comparable trends. McDonald’s relies on AI-fed pricing engines for local price variation, shifting balance toward sellers. In healthcare, AI-driven claim coding increased Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association’s costs by $942 million over two years, according to the insurer. Large enterprises are responding with dedicated procurement analytics, but most MSP clients lack this capability.For MSPs and IT providers, the implications are increased dependency on vendors for consumption data, greater unpredictability in client billing, and higher operational demands around usage tracking. To mitigate risk, providers should monitor and archive client AI usage themselves, set spend limits in collaboration with clients, and be prepared to justify expenses at renewal—or else face potentially unfavorable terms dictated by vendors.00:00 Same Product, A Different Bill 04:03 The Seller Holds The Record06:52 Tracking What Your Clients Use10:20 Why Do We Care?Supported by: GoTo(LogMeIn) Pax8NinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • When Clients Build Instead of Buy, MSPs Inherit Hidden Upkeep Costs

    When Clients Build Instead of Buy, MSPs Inherit Hidden Upkeep Costs
    2026/10/07
    Organizations are moving from purchasing commercial software to building their own applications with AI tools, shifting the ongoing maintenance and accountability from vendors to internal teams and MSPs. This creates governance gaps and operational risk that go unpriced, particularly as automation and custom app development become easier for enterprises, small businesses, and IT providers. Evidence comes from McKinsey’s State of AI survey, GoDaddy’s self-built app hosting, and direct MSP case studies.McKinsey found that 32% of organizations—and nearly half of AI “high performers”—built functionality in-house using AI instead of buying it. GoDaddy now enables deployment and management of such customer-built apps. MSPs like ITECH Solutions and WheelHouse IT illustrated how staff can rapidly implement automations or replace core business software, increasing reliance on internally developed tools.Despite accelerated development, ongoing responsibilities for patching, security reviews, and identity management remain. Incidents at Meta and OpenAI, as well as survey data from VentureBeat, highlight persistent risk and the lack of robust controls—especially around identity and security—for internally developed or AI-generated applications. Vendors such as Apple are responding with operating system-level controls, shifting the burden of informed consent and risk mitigation to the device layer.For MSPs and IT leaders, each client- or internally-built tool represents a new asset to manage, often without additional compensation. Failure to explicitly govern, price, and assign ownership to these tools increases hidden costs and risk, particularly with flat-fee agreements. Practical measures include treating every custom build as a managed asset, assigning identities and permissions, and itemizing them in contracts to align pricing with actual support delivered.00:00 Nobody Owns What Your Clients Build 04:08 Cheap To Build, Costly To Own06:56 The Layer Only You Control10:18 Why Do We Care? Supported by: HaloPSA ScalePad NinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • Ryan Morris on Why Vendor Growth Depends on Active, Profitable Partners—Not Just Big Numbers

    Ryan Morris on Why Vendor Growth Depends on Active, Profitable Partners—Not Just Big Numbers
    2026/10/01
    The primary structural shift examined is the move from vendor emphasis on quantity of partner recruitment toward a more nuanced focus on partner program health, accountability, and mutual business growth. This mechanism is highlighted by Dr. Backup’s acquisition by Hosvara, with the new owner, a former MSP operator, prioritizing the effectiveness and sustainability of the partner base rather than purely expanding headcount. The episode examines how explicit disclosure and management of active versus inactive partner numbers—rarely published in the sector—reflects a deeper push toward measurable outcomes and operational performance within indirect sales channels.The standout evidence comes from Dr. Backup’s partner program, which has seen over 300 IT firms join since inception, but only 125 remain active. According to company statements, the new owner’s strategy is not product-centric but centers on leveraging the current partner base by integrating business coaching and operational support into the program. This approach is intended to drive growth through existing relationships, rather than relying on continuous recruitment or product expansion in what is described as an already saturated backup market.Related developments reinforcing this shift include Microsoft retiring its most demanding MSP credential and ScanSource, a distributor, acquiring an MSP outright. Both actions signal that larger players are reorganizing their channel and partnership strategies, favoring authentic, measurable engagement over headline claims of partner volume. Discussion of the Pareto principle and active/inactive partner ratios further illustrates the risk of overreliance on recruitment metrics and the need for transparency and accountability regarding partner program health. The episode also critiques vendor behavior that distances itself from partner business performance, emphasizing the reputational and operational risks involved.For operational leaders, this shift implies that evaluating vendor partnerships now requires greater attention to transparency regarding active engagement, business impact, and mutual investment in outcomes—not just product features or price. MSPs and IT service providers should probe vendors for clear data on partner program health, insist on evidence of sustained partner profitability, and treat orchestration skills and partner selection as risk mitigation strategies. The sustainability and business impact of a given vendor’s channel approach will increasingly affect operational costs, dependency risk, and go-to-market resilience.Supported by: WebPros(CometBackup)HaloPSANinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    41 分
  • Default Security Choices Leave MSPs Exposed as AI Bots Blend With Legitimate Users

    Default Security Choices Leave MSPs Exposed as AI Bots Blend With Legitimate Users
    2026/09/30
    Correction: In this episode, the name of Arkose Labs was mispronounced. Arkose Labs (arkoselabs.com) is the source of the commentary from founder and CEO Kevin Gosschalk. A key structural shift identified is the growing governance gap created by AI agents that evade traditional detection and accountability measures. This challenge is exemplified by Meta’s Muse and OpenAI agents, which do not self-identify during interactions. As a result, determining agent activity and risk now depends on disclosures by the developer rather than the asset owner or operator, limiting the visibility and control of MSPs and IT service providers.One consequential incident involved an OpenAI agent accessing both public and non-public files in the Australian government's health portal. The breach went unnoticed by government security for 54 days and was discovered during an internal OpenAI review, later reported voluntarily by the company. In retail, Amazon blocked Meta's Muse agent from its platform after it failed to identify itself and due to concerns about credential handling, according to statements cited by GeekWire. These events illustrate growing dependency on agent developers for incident discovery and disclosure.Supporting developments include findings from Akros Labs that current rules are insufficient to distinguish customers, attackers, or bots, due to agents blending in as typical browsers. VentureBeat surveys show a decline in proactive agent isolation and a rise in uncontained incidents, indicating operational drift toward default-permissive security settings. While new standards from NIST for short-lived tokens and upcoming agent identification protocols are developing, enforcement and utility remain incomplete.For MSPs and IT leaders, the immediate implication is the need to revisit client-specific controls. Default reliance on legacy bot rules increases undetected risk, while inaction effectively shifts governance to external agent vendors. Providers must decide whether to block all unauthenticated agent traffic—accepting potential business impact—or allow agents and rely on token expiration and allow-listing signed agents as standards evolve. Continuous monitoring and regular adjustment of controls are necessary to minimize harm when agent anonymity and developer-only surveillance persist.00:00 The Agent That Looks Like Chrome 04:41 Only The Maker Is Watching07:02 The Default Nobody Chose10:07 Why Do We Care?Supported by: Proofpoint GoTo(LogMeIn) NinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • Measuring False Guidance: The Untracked Risk in AI-Driven Ticket Resolution

    Measuring False Guidance: The Untracked Risk in AI-Driven Ticket Resolution
    2026/09/29
    The episode highlights a structural shift toward operational reliance on AI agents as service staff rather than support tools, raising new questions about skill degradation, checking mechanisms, and accountability in managed service environments. Shield Technology Partners and Microsoft exemplify this trend by deploying AI operating systems—Shield's Forge and Microsoft's Autopilot—that independently handle substantial parts of the IT support process, in some cases from intake to ticket closure, often without direct human approval or intervention.According to Shield, its Forge platform is currently resolving approximately half of all actionable help desk tickets across its network of MSPs, with 92% of these resolutions occurring without technician time or explicit human oversight. On comparable tasks, Shield claims Forge resolves tickets 25 times faster than human technicians, yielding a median resolution time of 16 minutes. Microsoft’s latest Copilot update introduces Autopilot, which enables persistent, role-specific AI agents with individual user identities, email accounts, and organizational chart positions, further blurring the line between staff augmentation and staff replacement.These technical developments are accompanied by evidence of skill decay among technicians and knowledge workers, as cited in IBM’s survey of over 10,000 HR leaders and employees. The ability to supervise, validate, and override AI output is named by 71% of HR executives as an essential future skill, yet only 38% of employees agree, while 60% acknowledge that AI is eroding critical thinking. The discussion also touches on the operational risks documented within OpenAI, where human checkers are expressly forbidden to use AI-based tools to audit AI output, underscoring the persistence of human-in-the-loop requirements even as automation rates increase.Operational implications for MSPs include the need for new governance measures and skill tracking metrics. The podcast proposes a practical protocol for MSPs: periodic resilience drills that benchmark technicians' ability to catch false or misleading AI-generated guidance. These exercises would generate a proprietary “false guidance acceptance rate,” providing a critical datapoint missing from current vendor dashboards. The analysis suggests that without active measurement of this kind, throughput statistics alone may mask growing dependency risks, skill atrophy, and unrecognized exposures as AI handles a rising share of support work.00:00 Half The Queue, Nobody Signing Off 03:59 The Check Is Made Of The Work06:46 A Drill For When The AI Is Wrong10:55 Why Do we Care?Supported by: Proofpoint Pax8NinjaOne On-Demand Webinar: https://go.businessof.tech/p/ninjaone-pod 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · Pax8 · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AISupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    14 分
  • AI-Driven vCISO Platforms Create Pricing and Liability Shifts for MSPs—David Primor of Cynomi

    AI-Driven vCISO Platforms Create Pricing and Liability Shifts for MSPs—David Primor of Cynomi
    2026/09/28
    The primary structural mechanism examined concerns the shift in cybersecurity operations for MSPs driven by increased automation and AI-powered platforms, specifically as evidenced by Cynomi’s virtual CISO (vCISO) solutions. This transition signals a migration of both operational workload and expertise from traditional, manual processes toward digitally augmented roles, with significant implications for how accountability and liability are managed within managed security services.According to the facts presented by Cynomi’s CEO, the company’s recent integration-focused releases enable MSPs to accelerate assessment and compliance processes, claiming reductions from multi-day efforts to under 60 minutes in some cases. The platform aggregates data from existing MSP ecosystems (including PSA, EDR, and vulnerability management tools such as Tenable and Microsoft integrations) to assemble remediation plans and operational roadmaps, often with minimal human mediation. Cynomi states that a single vCISO operator, using these tools, can service up to 10-12 clients compared to 5 previously, with some projections reaching as high as 50. The company positions its technology as supplementing, not fully replacing, human expertise—though it acknowledges the potential for junior personnel, aided by AI, to bridge previous capability gaps.Supporting this dynamic, the episode explored how efficiency gains introduce questions around pricing, market access, and liability. Dave Sobel questioned the sustainability of pricing models anchored on scarcity of human CISOs when automation multiplies operator capacity and competitors adopt similar tools. The conversation highlighted that as AI reduces human labor in delivering assessments and compliance, market prices could decline, but the accessible market might expand, especially among previously underserved SMBs. Liability, however, remains with the MSP; automated recommendations must still be reviewed and approved by a designated human. Concerns were raised regarding insurance exclusions when AI-generated security policies are implicated in claims, prompting focus on the importance of maintaining human oversight and evidentiary processes.Operationally, MSPs face heightened pressure to clarify vendor and personnel accountability, reinforce internal QA on AI-driven deliverables, and rethink service economics in light of scalable automation. Vendors providing AI-enabled security assessments shift both risk and workload, but do not absolve providers of responsibility in the event of customer breaches or compliance failures. Insurers are beginning to scrutinize and sometimes exclude AI-generated outputs from coverage, underscoring the importance of documenting processes and retaining subject-matter oversight. These developments compel IT service providers to reassess vendor relationships, liability boundaries, and training needs for staff operating in an increasingly automated environment.Supported by:GoTo(LogMeIn) GuardzHaloPSA 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    27 分