iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
IT leaders are responding to the skills shortage mainly by reducing repetitive work through automation and shifting selected responsibilities to managed service providers (MSPs). The approach can return time to network improvement, security and staff development, but neither automation nor outsourcing, by itself, proves that the underlying talent gap is solved.
What the 2024 evidence shows
A BetaNews article published June 22, 2024, by Doug Murray, identified as Auvik’s CEO, summarized findings from Auvik’s IT Trends 2024 survey of 2,100 internal IT professionals. The figures describe that survey population and period, not every IT department.
| Reported finding | Share |
|---|---|
| Network- and SaaS-management tasks still performed manually | 29% |
| IT professionals documenting networks completely manually | 11% |
| Internal IT departments spending up to half their working hours on end-user requests | 64% |
| IT executives naming shortages of skilled professionals as their biggest obstacle | 49% |
| IT professionals working with at least ten network-related tools | 44% |
| Internal IT teams expecting a 2024 budget increase | 86% |
| Teams reporting increased investment in network automation | 24% |
Taken together, these results describe a capacity problem: teams are spending substantial time on support and manual administration while also facing fragmented tooling and difficulty hiring experienced people. They do not establish that automation caused better business outcomes or that outsourcing removed the shortage.
Why routine support work matters
When up to half of working time goes to end-user requests, technicians have less time for preventive maintenance, network redesign, documentation, incident analysis and learning. The issue is not that user support is unimportant; it is that a high volume of repeatable requests can crowd out work that improves reliability and resilience.
#1 Best Overall
Murray’s argument is that strategic automation creates capacity for higher-value work. As he put it: “The logical way to create more time in the day for IT involves the adoption of strategic automation, which allows IT teams to become more productive in support of the end users who really drive organizational growth.”
How automation can help—and where it cannot
Good candidates for automation
- Recurring network and SaaS-management checks with clear inputs and outputs.
- Asset discovery, inventory updates and topology documentation.
- Standard configuration changes that can be tested, approved and rolled back.
- Alert correlation, ticket routing and notifications for known conditions.
- Routine access, onboarding and software-request workflows with defined approvals.
Controls required before deployment
- Define which systems the automation may change and which require human approval.
- Use least-privilege credentials, logging and separation between testing and production.
- Build rollback procedures and an exception path for unusual or high-impact events.
- Assign an owner who reviews failures, updates rules and maintains integrations.
- Measure time saved and error rates rather than counting automation licenses.
Automation still requires people who can design workflows, interpret results, secure integrations and respond when conditions fall outside the rules. It changes the mix of work; it does not remove the need for skilled operators.
Where MSP outsourcing fits
An MSP can provide monitoring, service-desk coverage, specialized network operations or after-hours response when an internal team cannot staff those functions economically. Outsourcing is most defensible when the service boundary, escalation rules, security controls and accountability are explicit.
Recommended Free Tools
Questions to answer in an MSP agreement
- Which systems, sites and support tiers are included?
- What response and restoration targets apply to each severity level?
- Who owns configuration data, documentation and administrator credentials?
- How are privileged access, subcontractors, data location and offboarding handled?
- Which work remains with internal staff, and who makes final risk decisions?
- How will the organization verify that capacity was actually freed?
Outsourcing can add specialist capacity, but it can also introduce handoffs, contractual dependence and reduced visibility if governance is weak. The cited 2024 article advocates the option but does not provide comparative outcome data showing that MSP outsourcing closes the skills gap.
Automation versus outsourcing: a practical choice
| Decision factor | Automation | MSP outsourcing |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | High-volume, repeatable tasks with predictable rules | Functions needing sustained coverage or scarce specialist expertise |
| Internal capability needed | Design, integration, security, testing and maintenance | Vendor management, architecture ownership and escalation oversight |
| Main risk | Errors can scale quickly or affect many systems | Loss of context, slower handoffs or unclear accountability |
| Visibility | Usually direct, if logging and dashboards are implemented | Depends on contract terms, portals, reports and access controls |
| Cost pattern | Up-front implementation plus ongoing platform and maintenance costs | Recurring service fees, with scope and overage terms to review |
| Effect on staff development | Can create time for engineering and learning | Can create time if internal ownership and learning plans are retained |
Many organizations will use both: automate predictable work internally, then use an MSP for coverage or expertise that would be expensive to build and retain. The correct comparison is the capacity, risk and accountability gained—not whether one option sounds more modern.
What IT leaders should measure
Auvik’s 2024 survey reported these priorities for evaluating IT performance: end-user satisfaction (38%), severity of incidents resolved (28%) and overall IT cost (27%). Use those measures alongside operational indicators such as:
- Hours returned from repetitive requests to planned improvement work.
- Mean time to detect, acknowledge and resolve incidents.
- Change failure and rollback rates for automated actions.
- Documentation completeness and age of network inventory.
- Escalation volume, service-level performance and unresolved backlog.
- Training hours and certifications completed by internal staff.
Do not claim success merely because a task was automated or handed to a provider. Confirm that service quality, security and resilience improved while internal teams gained usable capacity.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Tool sprawl and visibility are part of the problem
The 2024 findings reported that 44% of IT professionals used at least ten network-related tools. A large toolset can create duplicate alerts, inconsistent data and additional training demands. When assessing a network-management or monitoring platform, compare:
Best Value
- Discovery, inventory, mapping and configuration management.
- Monitoring, alerting, troubleshooting and reporting.
- Integration with the organization’s ticketing, identity, cloud and security systems.
- Coverage across on-premises, cloud, remote and multi-site environments.
- Role-based access, audit logs, data retention and export options.
- Whether the service model suits one internal team or an MSP managing multiple clients.
Auvik’s product information describes these capability areas, but the available evidence does not independently establish a best vendor. Selection should follow documented operational requirements and a controlled evaluation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What newer 2026 figures add
Auvik’s official 2026 report page presents newer, vendor-published survey figures. They should not be silently substituted for the 2024 results, and the page does not provide enough methodology to independently audit them.
| 2026 Auvik-reported finding | Share |
|---|---|
| Lack of real-time visibility impeding work | 44% |
| Respondents reporting no new initiatives despite increased budgets | 13% |
| Respondents optimistic about AI | 67% |
| Respondents saying AI is core to operations | 5% |
| Corporate IT respondents citing lack of time as a primary blocker | 48% |
| Corporate IT respondents citing insufficient staff as a barrier | 33% |
| MSPs using ten or more tools | 36% |
| Organizations discovering unauthorized SaaS applications at least monthly | 61% |
| Mostly in-office work arrangements | 51% |
| Mostly remote arrangements | 23% |
| Balanced 50/50 hybrid arrangements | 25%, down from 40% in 2024 |
The 2026 measures distinguish using any AI or machine-learning tool from making AI central to operations: those are different definitions and survey years, so the 2024 and 2026 percentages are not directly contradictory. The newer page’s overall message is that time, staffing and visibility remain constraints even where budgets exist.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsA responsible implementation sequence
- Baseline the workload. Categorize tickets, changes, incidents and documentation tasks by volume, time, risk and required expertise.
- Choose low-risk repeatable work. Start with reversible actions and strong approvals, not the most sensitive production changes.
- Standardize data and tools. Remove duplicate monitoring and establish a trusted inventory before adding more automation.
- Pilot with auditability. Log every action, test failure modes and define rollback and human escalation.
- Set the service boundary. For an MSP, document scope, access, targets, ownership and exit requirements before transferring work.
- Reinvest the capacity. Reserve the recovered hours for architecture, resilience, security and structured skills development.
- Review quarterly. Compare service quality, risk, cost and staff capability against the baseline, and stop workflows that do not deliver net value.
The bottom line for IT leaders
The reported 2024 data supports a clear diagnosis: manual administration, heavy end-user support and tool complexity are consuming capacity while skilled professionals are difficult to find. Automation is a way to make repeatable work safer and less labor-intensive; MSP outsourcing is a way to obtain coverage or expertise that an internal team cannot maintain. Both require governance and skilled ownership. Treat them as capacity strategies, measure their actual effects, and continue investing in people rather than presenting either approach as a cure for the industry-wide talent shortage.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
