I’ll avoid the temptation to call it a managed services war or a battle. But there is a clear difference of opinion between the MSPAlliance and MSP Partners regarding managed services accreditation. And the story (actually non-story, I believe) reached new heights a few hours ago. Pull up a chair and take a seat. This is a long blog entry.
The central debate: MSP Partners on March 31 announced plans to launch a managed services accreditation. On April 15, the MSPAlliance board and committee members fired back with an open letter to its MSP members about the state of accreditation. The open letter alleged that nearly 1,000 MSPAlliance members are concerned about the MSP Partners accreditation — though the tactfully written letter did not mention MSP Partners by name.
Even stranger: The letter was posted anonymously to the MSPAlliance Web site, and no MSPAlliance board members actually signed the letter.
Before I share more, here are two important points:
- If you’d like to post a comment to this blog entry, please read this entire blog post. There’s a lot of back story here. Back up your claims/beliefs with facts or informed opinions, please, rather than anonymous flames.
- At the bottom of this article you’ll find a few disclosures explaining when and where MSPmentor works with the organizations mentioned in this article. That way, you can draw your own conclusions about our editorial coverage, potential biases, and our commitment to blogging far more often than we should.
Now, onto the central themes of this blog post:
- Why are nearly 1,000 MSPAlliance members allegedly upset about the MSP Partners accreditation?
- Do I really think all those members are upset?
MSPAlliance’s Early Work
Let’s start at the beginning. The MSPAlliance was founded [correction, co-founded] by President Charles Weaver. In 2004, the alliance launched an accreditation for managed service providers. The current MSPAlliance accreditation, which includes on-site audits and in-depth company reviews, generally receives high marks from many of the MSPs I’ve interviewed.
To be clear, the MSPAlliance accreditation is not designed for the masses. To the best of my knowledge, it serves only those MSPs that are able to clear high hurdles and really prove their worth in the managed services market.
Also, the MSPAlliance has every right to protect its hard work developing MSPAlliance Accreditation.
MSP Partners: The New Kid On the Block
Still, I defend MSP Partners’ right to introduce its own accreditation, assuming it doesn’t infringe on any work done by MSPAlliance.
MSP Partners was founded by Cisco, Intel, Ingram Micro, Level Platforms and Microsoft, and “further sponsored by many other worldwide IT Leaders,” according to the vendor-driven association’s web site.
A few critics allege that MSP Partners is nothing more than an operating arm of Level Platforms. Generally speaking, I disagree with that assertion. Why? At its core, I think MSP Partners exists to grow the managed services industry. I believe MSP Partners serves all members, not just Level Platforms.
With that goal in mind, MSP Partners on March 31 announced plans for a Managed Services Accreditation Exam. The MSP Partners exam is being developed by CompTIA (the Computing Technology Industry Association) and IPED (the Institute for Partner Education and Development, owned by Everything Channel, publisher of CRN).
The ‘Controversy’ Begins
As soon as MSP Partners announced its accreditation plans on March 31, it was clear to me that the MSPAlliance would take a close look at the MSP Partners announcement.
In an April 1 blog entry, I told readers:
“The MSPAlliance (MSPA) has an established, intensive accreditation program for its 8,000 or so association members. And generally speaking, the MSPA fiercely protects its work in the managed services market.”
In that same April 1 blog entry, I also wrote:
“Legally, has MSP Partners done anything wrong? I think not. Is there room for multiple managed services accreditations in the market? I think so. But remember: I’m just a blogger.”
Again, I’m just a blogger. I stand by my opinion that there’s room in the market for two (or more) managed services accreditations.
The Chatter Continues
By about April 9, I was hearing rumors that the MSPAlliance was taking a close look at the MSP Partners accreditation efforts. And I was told that at least two MSPAlliance board members — Jim Swoyer and Stephen Moisoff — were available to speak with me about the MSPAlliance’s alleged member concerns.
I reached out to Swoyer and Moisoff over email, and ultimately I dialed Swoyer. He explained how the MSPAlliance offered a comprehensive accreditation that was designed by MSPs for MSPs.
And Swoyer expressed concern that a vendor-driven effort (the MSP Partners offering) involving an online test could potentially allow sub-standard MSPs to earn accreditation (from MSP Partners).
MSP Partners Replies
I asked MSP Partners’ Jim Hamilton for his reply to Swoyer’s concerns. Hamilton stated, among other things:
“The MSP Partners accreditation has been developed by two of the recognized leaders in IT services provider research and education - CompTIA and Everything Channel’s Institute for Partner Education and Development (IPED).
The MSP Partners accreditation exam has been developed and is powered by CompTIA. CompTIA is a worldwide leader in the development of IT certifications and accreditations with tens of thousands of A+ certifications. They continue to lead in this area with the new Security Trustmark now being widely adopted by solution providers. As an independent industry association with an established track record of accreditation exam development, they were MSP Partners logical choice to develop and implement this element of the program. In developing the accreditation they worked extensively with a panel of leading MSPs.”
End of story, right? Yes… until a few hours ago.
An Open Letter — Signed By No One
I didn’t really plan to write this blog. There wasn’t a smoking gun or a Deep Throat who could definitely say there was a story here. A debate between the MSPAlliance’s Swoyer and MSP Partners’ Hamilton wasn’t really big news.
That all changed a few hours ago, when the MSPAlliance board on April 15 published an open letter to its members. In the letter, the MSPAlliance board alleges that it:
“has received nearly a thousand letters and emails from MSPs around the world regarding your concern that any vendor, individually or part of a larger group of vendors, would attempt to govern or accredit MSPs.”
My reaction? If MSPAlliance members are concerned, the MSPAlliance board certainly has a right to address those concerns.
But then I started thinking to myself: If so many MSPAlliance members are up in arms:
- How come none of the MSPAlliance board members actually signed the open letter?
- How come the letter was posted anonymously to the MSPAlliance Web site? Yes, anonymously.
It’s as if the MSPAlliance letter is written by everyone — but no one.
If there’s a controversy here, Weaver and the MSPAlliance board need to stand front and center, putting their names on paper and clearly stating where the controversy exists — if at all.
Or at least link the letter to the MSPAlliance board of advisors and accreditation/standards commitee page, so that casual readers can understand who within the MSPAlliance decided to publish the letter.
Weaver and the MSPAlliance have done a lot of good for the managed services industry, launching programs that assist MSPs with legal guidance, health care and other business needs. But sometimes, the MSPAlliance leadership disappears behind sweeping statements attributed to “the board” without anybody from the alliance stepping front and center.
Disclosures
At the top of this blog entry, I promised to disclose MSPmentor’s relationships with the various parties mentioned in this blog post. So here we go…
1. CompTIA: MSPmentor’s parent company, Nine Lives Media Inc., works with CompTIA on various custom media projects, including content development for the Breakaway conference. And yes, I’m a co-founder of Nine Lives Media Inc, which means I work on custom projects for CompTIA.
2. IPED/Everything Channel/CRN: We have no formal relationship with IPED and Everything Channel, though we do link out to their content from time to time when relevant. And more than a decade ago, I worked for Everything Channel’s former parent, the former CMP Media.
3. Level Platforms: The software company sponsors MSPmentor.
4. MSPAlliance: MSPmentor and MSPAlliance have no formal relationship. We cover MSPAlliance-related news. The MSPAlliance alleged in early 2008 that MSPmentor’s original tagline infringed on an MSPAlliance trademark. MSPmentor disagreed with the allegation but we agreed to change our tagline. More recently, Charles Weaver and I have maintained a casual ongoing dialog about MSPAlliance news.
5. MSP Partners: MSPmentor is an MSP Partners media sponsor. Basically, we drive traffic to each others’ sites. MSP Partners’ Jim Hamilton is a guest blogger on MSPmentor. I once golfed — badly — with Hamilton.
Good Night, Everybody
So, who is MSPmentor really in bed with on accreditation? Actually, it’s nearly 3:30 a.m. east coast time and I’m in bed with my wife. But pathetically, I’m blogging about a non-story. My larger point: When it comes to the editorial I write, I’m in bed with nobody. I write based on informed reporting and nearly 20 years of experience covering the IT market.
And for this particular blog, we have a case of the MSPAlliance alleging nearly 1,000 members are concerned about the MSP Partners accreditation. But there’s no buzz about the alleged controversy anywhere on the web. Not on Twitter. Not on Facebook. Not in MSP-oriented forums. Not on MSPmentor’s wide-open comment section. Nowhere … Except the anonymously posted letter on the MSPAlliance web site. (If I’m wrong, please post comments with links…)
That doesn’t add up.
Last week, one source close to the MSPAlliance asked me for my opinion on accreditation. He was basically asking me if I stood with the MSPAlliance or with MSP Partners.
My answer? I stand with the managed service providers — the audience that will ultimately decide which accreditations fit them best. May the best MSP accreditation(s) thrive for years to come. And may fair competition — even between associations — rule the MSP market.
MSPmentor is updated multiple times daily. Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe to our Enewsletter, RSS, Webcast and Twitter feeds.
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Posted In: Certification
Tags: CompTIA | Computing Technology Industry Association | CRN | Everything Channel | Institute for Partner Education and Development | IPED | Jim Hamilton | Level Platforms | Managed Services Accreditation | MSP Partners Accreditation | MSPAlliance Accreditation | MSPAlliance President Charles Weaver
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed
Take a look at our 
Great article.
I wanted to comment on the statement that MSP Partners is “nothing more than an operating arm of Level Platforms”. Although I am sure that the charter reads that way, all you have to do is perform a WHOIS look-up on the URL to see who owns it:
Domain Name: MSPPARTNERS.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: MW01.LEVELPLATFORMS.COM
Name Server: MW02.LEVELPLATFORMS.COM
Name Server: MW04.LEVELPLATFORMS.COM
Name Server: http://WWW.LEVELPLATFORMS.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 06-may-2008
Creation Date: 07-feb-2005
Expiration Date: 07-feb-2010
At the end of the day, I do believe that both associations provide great benefits to their members, but to say that this group is not owned and operated by Level Platforms is misleading.
My 2 cents!
Hi Joe
My 2 pennies worth:
1 I am sure there are better things to be doing in bed with your wife than blogging
2 I am not sure the audience who will decide which MSP accreditation wins is only the MSP’s themselves. Surely it will be the MSP’s customers who over time will make informed purchasing decisions based on which accreditation their potential supplier has gone through.
At the moment I fear that the honest truth is customers are not 100% aware of Managed Services and Cloud Computing – never mind which organisation with similar names their supplier is linked to or accredited by. To that end any alliance or group who promote Managed Services to the wider community are a good thing in my opinion, vendor backed or otherwise
That said, if the only noise coming from these groups is a spot of infighting then I’m afraid that will turn off the very people (ie the end user customer) who these groups should be trying to evangelically convert to managed services
Cheers
Simon
Thanks for the great coverage, Joe. With all this wealth of information I have little questions except: How badly did you play with Hamilton?
Articles like this remind me why MSPMentor is one of my homepages. Keep up the good work.
Pat@1: Thanks for the comment. I still believe MSP Partners works on behalf of its members and not purely on behalf of Level Platforms. But I do appreciate the fact that you jumped in with hard evidence (rather than vague statements).
So to further your point a bit: MSP Partners also shares office space and a phone system with Level Platforms. And MSP Partners’ Hamilton is a Level Platforms veteran. Yet, Level Platforms rival Kaseya joined MSP Partners. Why? Because, I think, Kaseya believed in MSP Partners’ mission to grow the industry.
I didn’t get into all this info in the blog post because ultimately, I think the central theme of the post is whether MSPAlliance members are really up in arms, and if so: Why?
Thanks again for reading, Pat. You say you offered 2 cents. But those two cents are valuable. And surely, you’re not the only reader who will disagree with me today on key points in my blog entry.
Simon@2: In response to your points…
1. This is a family site. But I overachieved when I married my wife.
2. I don’t have a comment about industry infighting … at least not yet. Because in this case, there’s an open letter from MSPAlliance board and committee members, and I suspect MSP Partners is simply going to proceed as planned with its efforts.
John@3: You asked how badly I played golf with Hamilton. So here’s more disclosure. It was at least year’s CompTIA Breakaway. By the sixth hole I was out of golf balls because all of my so-called drives landed in the water. Other than that I showed some real promise on the course.
This was posted by NO ONE because the Board of the MSPA decided that this needed to come form the body of MSPA as a whole not one individual person. Therefore I, Dan Wilson, posted it this way on behalf of the body of the MSPA and as the Chair of the Vendor Committee. See everyone in Orlando.
Some clarification, if I may
MSPAlliance was founded in 1999, not 2004. The accreditation program was started in 2004 and was several years in the making.
1) The open letter to MSPs was written at the behest of the entire board, along with the Vendor Relations Committee and the Standards Committee. After 3 separate and lengthy phone calls they ALL agreed to write the letter and they made it very clear that they wanted the letter to come from them and not from Charles or me. Adding a link to the letter directing them to the board and committee members is a great idea Joe and we will be happy to do that.
2) The anonymous posting issue is really a non-issue. The board does not have a collective log in- so when our webmaster posted it, he did not know who to attribute it to, so he simply posted it anonymously. That is something that we can certainly remedy, by simply having a board member log in and re-post it.
3) The amount of emails and calls we received were indeed staggering; it’s important to note that so many small MSPs out there do not want to confront vendors or engage in a combat with them; the was why the MSPA was formed in the first place. They look to us to take the heat for them.
4) Our Managed Services Accreditation Program(MSAP) is indeed not for everyone; but this is why we created the individual certification for MSPs- the Managed Services Professional Certification (MSPC)
I would just like to add that the MSPAlliance was a grass-roots effort that started so many years ago simply with the hope of helping MSPs and giving them a voice. We hung in there despite the fact that everyone felt that the managed services industry was a fad and despite the fact that everyone felt we would fail. We’re not perfect by any means, but we consistently strive to do the right thing with a strong belief that integrity means everything; we’ll continue to hold strong to that belief, even if it means taking some shots on behalf of our members.
In closing, I’d like to add that we are so very proud of the board and committee members for all of their hard work over the years. They volunteer all of their time and have given their blood sweat and tears on behalf of this industry.
Thank you for your time Joe, we really appreciate it…
Dan@7: Thank you for your thoughts. They are valued and best wishes at MSPWorld. But other than the inner MSPAlliance circle, I haven’t heard from mainstream MSPs about a controversy.
Celia@8: Thank you for your points. Just a small counter clarification: I never said when MSPAlliance was founded.
I continue to see value in both MSPAlliance and MSP Partners, and recommend MSPs (and aspiring MSPs) who are not affiliated with either association check in with them and draw their own conclusions.
Folks, Celia is Celia Weaver, co-founder of MSPAlliance. If you have questions for her or Charles or the MSPAlliance team, you can reach them directly at http://www.MSPAlliance.com.
Best
-jp
Thanks for the counter-clarification Joe. I guess that’s what I get for reading in bed
Interestingly enough just to take this full circle, as a MSPA member I just received at 11:47am EST an email blast containing the Open Letter by MSPA signed, “MSPAlliance Board and Committee Members”
I was just about to post the above statement made by John Kilgore.
Yes, the letter was scheduled yesterday for delivery on 4/16/09 at 8:00 AM PDT. In the HTML version of the letter, there is a link to all board and committee members-
Joe was posting the blog in bed
Celia was reading Joe’s post in bed
A few years ago one of our competitors took a major swipe at us here at Backup Technology accusing us, totally unfairly, of being a “back bedroom outfit”. I fear to let you know where I sometimes read and post on MSP Mentor (especially as I am 5 hours behind ET)………..but I think you can guess !!!
Simon
PS Great to see the fast posting responses – its fun when Joe/MSP Mentor stirs the pot like this
@Simon: Our intention is not to stir the pot, but to drive an open dialogue. Thanks for reading.
Joe -
My turn for full disclosure prior to my comments – I run Ingram Micro’s Services Division, a founding member of MSP Partners. We are also a Level Platforms Partner and offer LPI through our Seismic managed services platform.
Your initial and core question about whether or not there is really significant industry concern from MSP Alliance members about the MSP Partners accreditation is a valid one – where is the concern coming from, and is it real?
But I have an even more fundamental question: What, exactly, IS the concern and why is anybody wasting time arguing about it?
This discussion has spawned the most ridiculous example of why the IT Industry simply refuses to grow up. Let me illustrate why, and in doing so I will offer no opinions about any of organizations being discussed. They are not the issue here.
What is the issue we are arguing about? What is the concern? Are we concerned that one certification program is more legitimate than another? Are we arguing that one industry trade organization is more legitimate than another? Is the debate whether or not an industry trade organization, who claims to be vendor agnostic, is in a better position to determine what’s good for MSP’s than anyone else? Who’s opinion and criteria are we using to make such observations?
Let’s all get over ourselves and recognize one undeniable fact: The market you serve will determine what is valuable and what isn’t – not you. Not vendors, not MSP’s, not industry trade associations, regardless of their flavor or make-up. We can certainly try to influence what the market believes is important through training, marketing, certification programs, etc. But we don’t call the shots. Our customers do. And you got nothin’ until such time that your customers decide you do.
We, as an industry, are battling ourselves. Don’t all accreditation programs for MSP’s validate the overall MSP market? Won’t a rising tide float all boats? Why would any of us spend time trying to discredit the very idea and concept which we ourselves are promoting? To do so is the definition of insanity.
MSP Alliance, MSP Partners…who cares which side you fall on or who you feel is better. The simple fact is they both have the same overarching goals: Grow the MSP space. Raise the tide. Float all boats.
Any effort or time that one industry organization spends trying to de-value or discredit another which shares the same goals, is wasted energy and starts to smell exclusionary, which is always suspicious coming from organizations who’s sole purpose for existence is the betterment of the companies that operate in those industries. (Or it that their real reason for existence? Investigative report, Joe?)
Let’s all take the high road here. Spend your energy and time doing whatever it is you do best and let the merits of your organization and capabilities stand for themselves. The market, and our respective customers, will pass judgment on each of us in due time.
(full disclosure: we work with Jim at MSP Partners)
Justin hit it on the head.
The real question is how to validate this accreditation in the eyes of the market. As a whole, no governing body actually markets the overall value the channel provides to businesses. A+ is still well recognized and Microsoft is doing a good job with their Small Business Specialist program but outside of this, no other industry notable organization has secured viable exposure for the channel. As a community, we are taking many steps in this direction, but for an entire industry this is a huge hole that needs to be filled.
Thanks.
Jerry
Justin@17: Thanks for taking the time to write. I think I can boil down everything to two words…
Word 1: Exclusionary
Word 2: Dilution
Background 1: Justin, you used the word “exclusionary” in your extended comment post. Sorry to zero in on a single word. But let’s face it, I tend to go right to the heart of the matter.
Background 2: MSPAlliance President Charles Weaver used the word “dilution” in his April 1 comments to me about MSP Partners accreditation, stating: “a concern that was expressed by our board and committee members is the potential dilution of the term “accreditation”.”
So let’s cut to the chase…
1. On one side of the coin, is MSPAlliance exclusionary?
Example: Can everyone (MSPs who are also book authors, consultants, educators, master MSPs who run communities, etc.) participate in MSPAlliance?
2. On the other side of the coin, is MSP Partners diluting the term accreditation?
Example: Did MSP Partners somehow undermine years and years of MSPAlliance Accreditation work when MSP Partners launched its own accreditation?
My answers: I’m on the record stating I wish MSPAlliance was more open, but I must also thank MSPAlliance for inviting me to MSPWorld, though I had a conflict and respectfully declined. I’m also on record stating I think MSP Partners has the right to launch their accreditation.
Readers: Please draw your own conclusions. My personal experience does not necessarily reflect the experience of an entire industry. But I do stand by my personal opinions.
I would like the opportunity to clarify some points made here today.
The open letter to the MSPAlliance membership did not mention any vendors or organizations by name. This was done in an effort to take the “high ground.” The letter was in direct response to a growing number of MSPs who had voiced concern (over the past several months) that the MSPAlliance would be allowing its Managed Services Accreditation Program (and other yet to be announced certifications) come under the control of any vendor organization.
It is important to note that the MSPAlliance has 8,000 member companies all over the world and a great many of the correspondence has come from MSPs outside of North America. These MSPs are facing their own issues with regards to vendor and government controlled organizations.
Furthermore, what has not been mentioned here today is the fact that the open letter specifically states that we believe “vendors play a very important role in our industry and, in fact, have played a very active and beneficial role in the MSPAlliance.”
As far as exclusionary practices, every professional association (whether engineers, doctors, lawyers, CPAs, dentists, etc.) has exclusionary practices. This is what makes them a professional industry association. If anyone could join these associations they would become mere social clubs lacking any qualifying or professional characteristics.
In closing, I would like to state very clearly that the open letter was written to assure our members that their industry association, accreditation and certification standards (that they created) would remain within their control.
Joe – as you know there are always two sides to every story; thank you for giving us the opportunity to share ours. Hopefully we’ll see you at MSPWorld Las Vegas.
Charles:
Thank you for continuing to share your views with me, and our readers. Some of our views differ. But I hope readers realize we do agree on a great many issues (the value of SAS 70; MSPA programs involving leasing, legal guidance, health care; etc.)
Regarding MSPWorld Las Vegas in October: Thank you for the invite. I don’t know my schedule yet for Oct. 29-30. And frankly, there is another nagging issue in terms of me attending MSPWorld.
I co-founded MSPmentor and the larger Nine Lives Media Inc. with Amy Katz. As CEO, Amy builds and runs our company. Business development, sales, finance, strategic relationships… everything. And generally speaking, we travel together at all times — separate hotel rooms, folks. But we grow the business together…
Last I heard, MSPWorld was not open to Amy. I think your reasoning involves MSPA concerns over Amy potentially holding MSPmentor sales meetings at the event. But excluding Amy from MSPWorld attendance is a deal killer for me.
You’ve pointed out in your post that every professional association has exclusionary practices. We can’t force our will on an MSPA event. So we’ll agree to disagree. And that’s not tragic.
Even if you allowed Amy and me to attend MSPWorld Las Vegas, we can’t guarantee our attendance due to our own pressing business deadlines. But you have my word: If there’s relevant news at MSPWorld, we’ll cover it on the editorial front regardless of my location.
That reminds me of another item: I would like to apologize for showing up near your 2008 Boston event (same building, different floor) uninvited. Many of the MSPAlliance members were happy/eager to meet with us, but it was in bad taste for us to show up and have private meetings one floor down from your event.
Since that time, we’ve re-built an open editorial dialog between MSPmentor and MSPA — even when we disagree, sometimes strongly, on selected issues.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts above. And good luck with MSPWorld Orlando.
-jp
Joe,
You bring up a very fair point. In the past we’ve limited attendance to MSPs, VARs, Accredited Vendors, Sponsors and press. We’ve never knowingly allowed media sales people to attend. However, I do understand your position.
I’d like to add that the MSPAlliance has absolutely no desire to become a media group; I’m happy to leave that to the experts. The one and only thing we want to be is an accrediting body and industry association for the managed services industry. Therefore, I see no overlap here and I’m confident we can come to some sort of happy resolution.
Tried to resist it, but I’m a sucker and can’t resist posting my 2 cents (or maybe should be 2 pennies given I’m in England right now)
I think the MSPAlliance is a tremendous organization and Nimsoft has been a member of that organization for many years, in fact we were probably in the first 50 or so companies to sign up. Nimsoft has sponsored MSPAlliance events and will continue to do so where the opportunity arises.
MSPmentor is simply the best source for news, information and commentary on the Managed Services industry. We have also sponsored MSPmentor events and will continue to do so.
Both of the above are organizations/businesses that are, as far as I know, independently operated from the vendors in this space – to me this is critical. We have tremendous respect for both organizations.
MSPpartners on the other hand is an organization that we have no dealings with. We spoke to them a year or so ago when they were trying to sell us on becoming a sponsor. But, when I spoke with Jim Hamilton to explain to him why we wouldn’t be participating, I asked him three questions:
1. Which office are you sitting in right now? A – Level Platforms
2. Who pays your salary? A – Level Platforms
and 3rd, and probably most importantly..
3. Which company do you own stock options in? A – Level Platforms
I am not saying that MSPpartners does not do any good and I am not saying that MSPpartners cannot run their own accreditation program but I am saying that it is absolutely impossible for someone to be independent when their personal compensation and their personal wealth is defined by one of the vendors.
e.g. Would the accreditation program by MSPpartners include something that an MSP would have to do that could not be done using Level Platforms product? Somehow I doubt it.
I just wish that MSPpartners would be more open that they are owned and operated by a vendor…
Gary: I cannot debate you on items 1,2 and 3. Valid points. Jim has clear conflicts of interest. And I love the fact that you arrived to the party armed with a great item for debate. I’m hardly surprised given the fact that you always bring a new perspective to the conversation. I love our debates. And hope they continue no matter what airport you’re blogging from on a given day
But here’s the fact: Nearly everybody I’ve come across in the MSP market has a potential conflict of interest…
Facts:
1. Jim has Level Platforms conflicts of interest. But on the other hand: It’s safe to say Jim won’t get paid and MSP Partners won’t keep its doors open if Jim doesn’t provide a valuable, level (pardon the pun) playing field to all MSP Partners members/sponsors.
2. I have conflicts of interest since ultimately my personal compensation comes from vendor sponsorships for our media sites. But it’s safe to say I won’t get paid and our media sites won’t survive if I pander to vendors and don’t provide credible, timely content. This is true for ALL media companies, since most editors now do consulting work for vendors (custom events, custom white papers, webcasts, etc.). Readers must decide who they trust. And hopefully editors disclose their conflicts as they arise.
3. MSPAlliance has conflicts of interest (I believe) by having selected media and selected vendor sponsors at its events, selected vendors on its board, etc., among other examples. What if IBM or EDS or Dell wanted to sponsor an event but didn’t see value in paying for MSPA accreditation because, frankly, their data centers are world-class? In that example, MSPA favors its accredited vendors. But hopefully, those conflicts represent the will of MSPA’s 8,000 members. If the members want to run the association that way, that’s their right and choice.
The bottom line: Anybody who claims to be vendor neutral, unbiased and all those other fancy statements is just plain wrong. We’re all biased. It’s a matter of disclosing those biases as best we can if/when they pop up, and then hopefully serving the true lifeblood of an organization/business:
1. Jim’s lifeblood: MSPP members
2. MSPA’s lifeblood: 8,000 members
3. My lifeblood: Vocal, engaged readers
-jp
To All:
This is a very interesting string of comments. One question…what is the purpose? I believe that our role as MSPs is to offer the best, vendor neutral solutions to our clients. It is up to us as MSPs to decide what the best approach will be. From the clients perspective I believe both organizations need to do a better job of educating the clients as to what their various accreditation means. We all need to work together to make the Managed Services industry a success. Up until the time I read this I was proud to be a MSP. Now I am wondering if my industry will ever grow up…..time will tell….lets put down the axes and focus on what matters most…our CLIENTS! With out them what would we be?
No Gonna Tell: I don’t see axes. I see open conversation where industry leaders are openly talking about the value of various approaches to accreditation, growing a market, etc. I thought the string was done. Then Gary Read (@23) raised a huge point about conflicts of interest. Surely, that’s worth lively open discussion.
PS: It’s time for me to write some new blogs. So I’m going to try and remain silent on the comments boards for a bit.
Just to clarify-
1) We do not require event sponsors to be accredited. Both Dell and EDS (neither are accredited) are members and have in fact been at almost every conference we’ve ever had. Dell (even though not an accredited member) has been an event sponsor many times. We do offer a 1k discount to accredited vendors that want to sponsor; maybe that is where the confusion comes in?
2) As for the board- there are NO vendors on the board. They are all MSPs. We do have a vendor advisory committee- but they play no policy or governing role in the MSPA whatsoever.
Thank you Gary for the kind words- we hear so many positive things about Nimsoft and Ken Vanderweel has been such a tremendous asset at our events; always smiling, always courteous and always taking wonderful pictures..thanks for all you do.
Celia: Sorry I didn’t have my facts straight (comments 26, 27). I stand by my opinion that most players in the MSP market — including MSPAlliance — have conflicts of interest. But I shouldn’t have assumed a connection between event sponsorship and accreditation, and my choice of words regarding your board was wrong. Shame on me for talking before asking you.
Personally, after reading through a number of these blogs, I have to say, why so much talk about upset members and accreditation etc etc? In the end, everyone is looking to make money in the Channel, and through Managed Services. I think some of this talk is really good, but the negative points are a waste of time that could have been spent sell services, and working on building up more contracts. It seems to me that MSPAlliance is just worried about another fish being in their pond, and have decided to toss a couple punches at another organization. If MSP Partners has Vendors working with them, so what?!! Wouldn’t that make a Solution Provider more power with their customers if they have the most recent products and services to offer? Another point is, why wouldn’t a new member want help from vendors? Each and every week, Solution Providers ask, “How do I sell this services?” “What are other Solution Providers doing”? Well now you get the best of both worlds, Vendors with yrs of experience working with the Channel, and actual Channel Members (MSP’s) on the user group forms every helping each other day.
Open conversation is awesome, but some of this stuff reminds me of the soap opera my wife watches where someone marries the same person 5 times, dies twice, but comes back to life, goes away 5 yrs old, and then comes back 6 months later 22 yrs of age.
If I may;
1) The open letter to our members has no mention whatsoever of any organization and we certainly did not take a “punch” at anyone.
2) We state in the letter that the vendors are an extremely valuable part of the organization. Please note that we have well over 1,000 vendor members in the MSPAlliance- including Level Platforms.
3) Vendor members are not charged any money to join the MSPAlliance. They only pay for accreditation if they choose to pursue it.
4) We’ve not named names or slung any mud here, but we sure took some painful shots.
5) There is NO rival, war or battle between Level Platforms and the MSPAlliance. In fact I had a very pleasant exchange with Peter and members of his team today. They are a member of the MSPAlliance and have exhibited at every single conference we have ever had and will be exhibiting at our conference in Orlando as well.
I would just like to add that we stood by this industry when everyone else abandoned the business model and said that managed services was nothing but a fad. We were mocked by the press and the analyst community, but we did not care, we believed in the model. We worked tirelessly with Lloyd’s of London to convince them that MSPs had a legitimate business model and deserved their own insurance program. We’ve had some members save over 40k per year on their policies! We’ve done a tremendous amount of good for the industry and will continue to stand up for what is right; even if that means that we have to take a few shots.
Celia: You have not slung any mud here and you’ve done a great job answering reader questions. And you also politely corrected errors that I made.
But the MSPAlliance made a huge mistake putting out a letter about an alleged accreditation controversy/concern that does not exist. Everybody — and I mean EVERYBODY — knows MSPAlliance wrote the letter in response to MSP Partners’ accreditation move.
Care to debate me on this? I was told directly by an MSPAlliance board member — BEFORE the letter came out — that a potential MSPAlliance letter about MSP Partners accreditation was being drafted. So give me a break, really.
And in the past 24 hours, your association has been reaching out to many of the most influential members of the MSP industry that MSPAlliance alienated in recent years.
Book authors.
Trainers.
Educators.
Community leaders.
People who were told to cease and desist or told they were no longer welcome in the alliance. Why are you reaching out to them now? Did Justin’s word — exclusionary — hit a nerve?
If people step on the MSPAlliance trademarks, you have every right to protect those trademarks. If I make an editorial error, you have every right to demand an immediate correction.
But please do not suggest — directly or indirectly — that the MSPAlliance’s letter was not in direct response to MSP Partners. Your own board member told me it was. It was a thinly veiled attack on MSP Partners, without mentioning them by name in the letter. Period.
I’m now done with this topic. Unless, of course, you’d care to turn over the nearly 1,000 emails and letters you’ve allegedly received from concerned MSPs.
The only thing that matters is the letter we DID send and WHY. Both changed after we first talked to you. And quite frankly, until this blog, MSPP was never publicly mentioned by us.
As to your request for me to turn over our members’ private emails to you- that would violate our privacy policies and violate the code of ethics that we are sworn to uphold.
Folks,
I don’t mind who is backed by who. It’s a competitive world out there and we’ve all got to feed our families, so any innovation/honest advantage anybody can swing is fine by me. So lets get on.
HoundDog takes a pragmatic view, we’ve recently sponsored MSP Mentor and we knew of MSP Mentor’s history, but hey ho, its a great hub for the industry.
My other point is on the point of accreditation! I think there is a drawback … i often think accreditation programs stifle innovation / ideas. It could be argued that(blindly) following accreditation or eating up somebody elses ‘business transformation’ could perhaps remove your competitive advantage ….
I guess i think of these types of things as ‘Painting by numbers’. No doubt that will offend some. Sorry!
Chris Martin
HoundDog Technology
Easy, Affordable Tools for IT Support
http://www.hounddogiseasy.com
I was wondering if MSPAlliance would care to comment on another aspect of their organization?
From the MSPAlliance website, the following text is quoted:
“The MSPAlliance™ is the world’s largest professional association and accrediting body for the Managed Services Industry.”
Operating in Washington, DC, we are surrounded by professional associations and accrediting bodies. The vast majority of these organizations are non-profits, IMHO they are established as non-profits by their members to ensure that they remain dedicated to the needs of their members and progression of their industry.
I see that MSPAlliance.com is owned by IT Alliance Group, Inc. Is IT Alliance Group, Inc DBA MSPAlliance a non-profit organization?
Thank you!
Hey Nick. I hope all is well. Sorry I didn’t reply sooner; tied up at the Ingram Micro Seismic conference. I am not familiar with the IT Alliance Group. Readers who have questions for MSPA can reach out to them via email: info [at] MSPalliance.com.
But with all associations/organizations (MSPAlliance, MSP Partners, CompTIA, etc.), I suggest MSPs meet with with organization leaders and speak with peers to determine which organizations are the best fit(s) for their needs.
Sorry for the vanilla reply. I’m at a conference and I truly haven’t had time to research your comment more fully.