Often we cannot tell there is something wrong with our IT systems until the screen freezes or it is not loading faster than slug – which raises the question is continuous maintenance worthwhile or an IT break-fix approach fine for businesses?
The break-fix philosophy is followed by many organisations and IT service providers: when issues occur within your network, contact with the technician is made. Depending on whether the technician called is in-house or outsourced, the amount of time it would take for the problem to be resolved can be anyone’s guess… So, sitting around… waiting.
Whereas, continuous infrastructure maintenance requires a routine assessment of hardware, software, network infrastructure and even daily practices of your users; it can highlight potential issues – that is lurking in your IT systems waiting to pounce, when you least expect it.
While the break-fix approach, can to be working one minute and left un-operational in the next but, capital is only required when something in the IT network is actually broken.
Continuous updates and assessments will require higher investment than break-fix but, it can increase efficiency and productivity; may even save money in the long run; for example, finding out you’re paying for more software licenses than you actually need.
With businesses becoming increasing reliant on their IT systems ‘Break-fix’ VS ‘continuous maintenance’ it should be a decision based on the business needs and assessing the pain points. For example, if communication is mainly by telephone rather than email, and the internet is down it may not cause many issues but, if the business is an e-commerce like Amazon… being offline will be the biggest pain of them all!!
So, pros and cons can be found with both – the most important question is which of these approaches to the business IT infrastructure is most suited to the business as a whole.