A large nonprofit with a distributed workforce, seasonal locations, remote employees, and a mix of national and local technology systems engaged Xantrion for IT benchmarking and advisory support. The goal was not to implement services, but to help the organization better understand its IT environment, clarify its real support needs, and identify opportunities to refine its MSP requirements before selecting future coverage.
Challenge
The nonprofit was preparing for the end of an MSP contract and wanted to evaluate what kind of coverage would best fit its needs. Its environment was more complex than a typical organization of its size, with national parent-organization systems it did not control, Microsoft 365, SaaS tools, on-premise infrastructure, retail operations, remote employees, and seasonal camp locations.
The organization also had one internal IT leader who managed organization-specific applications, seasonal site needs, and MSP coordination. That made it important to distinguish between what should stay internal and what a future MSP should realistically own.
Several service expectations needed clarification, including onboarding and offboarding, after-hours support, onsite support, support for non-standard applications, security training, IT policy guidance, retail operations, and seasonal site work. Without clearer scope, the organization risked comparing MSP proposals that were priced and structured around very different assumptions.
Solution
Xantrion helped the nonprofit benchmark its IT environment and clarify its service requirements.
Through the discussion, Xantrion helped separate internal IT responsibilities from MSP responsibilities. The internal IT leader would likely continue managing organization-specific applications, seasonal site setup, and institutional knowledge. A future MSP would be expected to focus on core infrastructure, Microsoft administration, endpoint support, security services, remote support, onboarding and offboarding, and connectivity-related troubleshooting.
Xantrion also helped the organization identify where its requirements should be more specific. For example, systems such as retail, alarm, surveillance, postage, and camp technology did not necessarily require full MSP ownership. In many cases, the more appropriate expectation was network or internet connectivity support, with internal staff or application vendors retaining responsibility for the systems themselves.
The benchmarking discussion also surfaced opportunities to simplify the environment. Xantrion noted that Microsoft Entra could support single sign-on needs and that Microsoft Intune could support device management, helping the organization consider whether it could reduce complexity by using tools it already had.
Results
The nonprofit gained a clearer understanding of the IT coverage it actually needed.
Instead of asking MSPs to support every technology touchpoint, the organization could better define which services should be included in a managed services agreement, which should remain internal, and which might be treated as separate projects. It also gained a stronger framework for evaluating potential MSPs based on practical service expectations, including onboarding process, remote support capabilities, response and resolution targets, reporting, customer satisfaction, and regular review meetings.
An executive with the organization was grateful for the help. “The benchmarking discussion helped us see that the goal wasn’t onsite IT. It was strong remote support, clear reporting, the right service levels, and a coverage model that fit how our organization actually works.”
Most importantly, the organization moved from a broad request for “more IT support” to a more precise understanding of the coverage model that would suit its environment: strong remote support, clear accountability, mature onboarding and offboarding, Microsoft expertise, security services, and well-defined responsibilities between internal IT, application vendors, and any future MSP partner.
