Your MSP Delivers Uptime. But Who Delivers ROI?
Technology-First vs Business-First
Your MSP recommended a $200K infrastructure upgrade.
Your CIO approved it as “critical.”
Your CFO signed the PO but still can’t explain the business case to the board.
Three smart people.
One decision.
Zero alignment on what defines success.
Nobody is lying.
Nobody is overreaching.
Nobody is doing anything outside their mandate.
But the MSP is optimizing for uptime.
The CIO is optimizing for capability.
And the CFO is the one who has to justify the spend.
This is where the system breaks.
The Non-Villain Reality
Your MSP is not overselling.
They get paid to reduce technical risk, prevent outages, and expand capacity when needed.
They measure success in SLA compliance, ticket closure, uptime percentages, and tool effectiveness.
Your CIO is not careless.
They are ensuring the business has the systems and platforms required to function.
They measure success in capability delivery, modernization progress, and operational stability.
Both are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.
But no one in the MSP–CIO chain is responsible for determining whether the spend earns its fee.
That burden lands on the CFO.
The Structural Gap: Three Metrics, Zero Alignment
Here is the underlying problem:
-
MSPs measure technical performance.
Uptime, SLAs, ticket speed. -
CIOs measure operational capability.
Can the organization execute with its current tools? -
CFOs measure financial return.
Did $2.4M in MSP spend produce any measurable business value?
These metrics were never designed to coexist.
The MSP hits 99.9% uptime (success).
The CIO gets the tools they requested (success).
The CFO has no defendable ROI (failure).
When the metrics collide:
-
MSP spending compounds
-
Technical upgrades accumulate
-
CIO approvals seem reasonable
-
CFO explanations sound uncertain
-
Boards lose patience
The issue isn’t technical.
It’s economic.
What Breaks When This Continues
When technical and financial success are not linked, the risks escalate quickly:
-
MSP proposes $300K “essential” upgrades
-
CIO approves because risk sounds unavoidable
-
CFO signs because saying no feels irresponsible
-
Board asks why IT spend rose 22 percent
-
CFO can’t prove value
-
CIO loses credibility
-
MSP contract grows anyway
Nobody intentionally created this outcome.
The system is simply ungoverned.
Ungoverned systems reward consumption, not value.
Ungoverned MSP relationships accumulate cost, not clarity.
Ungoverned decisions tax every dollar the business invests.
The Missing Layer: Financial Governance
The fix is not:
-
switching MSPs
-
cutting the CIO
-
renegotiating the contract
-
adding more SLAs
-
buying more tools
The fix is adding the governance layer that forces precision on what IT spending must deliver.
JH Strategic IT sits between the CFO and the MSP/CIO relationship, asking the questions no one in that chain has incentive to ask:
-
What business outcome justifies this spend?
-
What is the measurable return?
-
Can this be accomplished with reallocation instead of expansion?
-
What is the financial risk of approving this proposal?
-
How do we demonstrate value to the board?
This is not technical oversight.
This is financial governance.
Your MSP’s job is execution.
Your CIO’s job is delivery.
Your job is capital allocation.
Our job is ensuring you can defend it.
System vs Execution
An MSP executes tasks.
JH Strategic IT governs decisions.
An MSP manages tickets and infrastructure.
JH Strategic IT manages spend, ROI, and alignment.
An MSP reduces noise.
JH Strategic IT reduces waste, risk, and ambiguity.
A simple way to frame this:
MSPs keep the lights on.
We determine whether keeping the lights on is worth what you are paying.
Decision Framework:
When to Choose Which
Your Situation | Best Fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
Need operational support | MSP | Technical execution and SLA delivery |
Need financial justification for IT spend | JH Strategic IT | ROI clarity and governance |
Need board-ready answers | JH Strategic IT | Business-first translation |
Need tickets, tools, and uptime | MSP | Execution and maintenance |
Need to understand whether MSP recommendations are valid | JH Strategic IT | Independent oversight |
Need long-term technical operations | MSP | Infrastructure management |
Need visibility into whether IT is earning its fee | JH Strategic IT | Spend visibility and financial precision |
This is not an either/or choice.
It is a sequence and governance problem.
Governance first.
Execution second.
Never the reverse.
Summary
Your MSP excels at maintaining systems.
Your CIO ensures technical capability.
But neither is accountable for proving financial value to the board.
That responsibility belongs to the CFO.
JH Strategic IT exists to give CFOs that clarity.
MSPs execute operations. Someone has to govern whether those operations are worth executing.
Clarity wins.
Unguarded execution taxes every dollar you spend.
FAQ
Do you replace MSPs?
No. MSPs are essential. We ensure MSP spending is aligned to measurable business value.
Does this mean my MSP is overselling?
Not intentionally. MSPs optimize for technical performance, not financial return.
Why can’t my CIO handle this governance?
CIOs evaluate technology. CFOs evaluate capital. Governance sits between them.
Can you tell us if our MSP contract is overpriced?
Yes. More importantly, we assess whether spend aligns with business outcomes.
What happens if we need both MSP work and governance?
You keep your MSP. We establish the financial model that defines what “good” looks like.
Will you evaluate MSP recommendations?
Every proposal is reviewed through business, financial, and operational lenses.
Strategic IT Governance Resources
If you are evaluating IT spend, risk, or value under board or investor pressure, these resources explain how different situations require different governance responses.
Start With Decision Clarity
A clear decision framework for executives deciding between independent governance, internal IT leadership, vendors, or large consulting firms.
Executive Persona Guidance
How to translate IT spend into defensible financial narratives the board can challenge and approve.
How governance exposes operational risk, cost leakage, and execution blind spots before they hit the P&L.
How independent IT governance supports diligence, value creation, and post-close oversight across portfolio companies.
Core Services
A fixed-scope engagement that delivers a board-ready financial view of IT spend, risk, and value.
A rapid diagnostic for executives who need immediate clarity before a board meeting, renewal, or capital decision.
A structured program that installs permanent financial and operational governance over IT.
Ongoing executive-level oversight to keep spend, risk, and vendor behavior aligned with business outcomes.