Transition from SMB to large/enterprise

ptilsen

Has anyone managed to successfully and smoothly transition a career largely based in small and medium business to an enterprise type role? If so, can you share your experiences?

I'm getting to be fairly far into my career, and the latter part has largely been in dealing with SMBs. This means limited exposure to enterprise-level technologies. For example, I have lots of experience with Exchange and Active Directory, but almost no experience in environments with multiple domains, trusts between forests, AD FS, etc. or with DAGs, UM, etc. Another issue is that my skills and experience are all over the place, and it would be hard to claim to be a specialist in much of anything.

From what I've seen here, I'm not the only one to run into this type of issue. I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has worked in both ends of the spectrum. How did they compare? Which did you prefer? How was the transition from one to the other?

Mrock4

I'm on the other end of the spectrum in the sense that I've almost always been on the network side of the house, but other then that I'll go for it. Without a terrible amount of background, I've been in a SMB environment and a couple of enterprise roles.

The first glaring thing I noticed about an enterprise role was: red tape. Lots of it. And there's a process for everything- whereas prior to that I was in an organization that was pretty laid back, and generally let the IT guys "do IT stuff." In an enterprise position, though, everyone is much more accountable for their own actions (at least in my experience), and typically it is a lot harder to get stuff done. That's not always a bad thing, it just means you have to be aware of the proper way of doing business, according to your employer. That being said, that draws me into the next part..money. In a SMB, I had to literally fight for every dollar just to keep the network running. In an enterprise network, the script was flipped, and now we have an insane amount of equipment that we don't even need, but have- for one reason or another.

I think once you transition, being a 'jack of all trades' from an SMB environment is a good thing, it leaves you open to becoming a specialist in a certain area, instead of being forced into a position in an enterprise just because you're qualified. Prior to my first enterprise position, I didn't really have a clearly defined "Specialty". I'm still hesitant to call myself a specialist, but I have taken on the role of being the go-to guy for a couple of different areas, which is nice.

Just my $.02 anyway, I don't really know much.

onesaint

Excellent topic. As you noted, there are quite a few of us SMB JOATs out there. I'm sure, like myself, the desire to head over to Enterprise IT is common amongst the ranks.

N2IT

+1 excellent topic

Wish I had more to offer. All my IT and business experience has been large scaled enterprises. Lots and lots of processes, which if are modeled properly are a good thing. Specialization allows you to become an expert. At least that's the case for us mere mortals. I always loved initating meetings with the different teams and trying to foster cohesiveness between the teams. It was always a challenge but when the meeting was done properly you really could achieve a lot.

ptilsen

Mrock4 wrote: »

The first glaring thing I noticed about an enterprise role was: red tape. Lots of it. And there's a process for everything- whereas prior to that I was in an organization that was pretty laid back, and generally let the IT guys "do IT stuff." In an enterprise position, though, everyone is much more accountable for their own actions (at least in my experience), and typically it is a lot harder to get stuff done. That's not always a bad thing, it just means you have to be aware of the proper way of doing business, according to your employer. That being said, that draws me into the next part..money. In a SMB, I had to literally fight for every dollar just to keep the network running. In an enterprise network, the script was flipped, and now we have an insane amount of equipment that we don't even need, but have- for one reason or another.

I've noticed the same. Which was the bigger trade-off? The lack of budget, or the lack of freedom/power/authority? I feel like it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. The advantage I've found in SMB is if you can come up with a cost-effective way to do something, there's great fulfillment and rewards to be had. When the cost-cutting component goes away, to me that can take away some of the enjoyment. On the other hand, better tools (toys, if you well) to use (play with) might be an even trade-off. Hard to say, from my SMB-heavy perspective.

Ultimately, I see processes as an overall advantage, even with lost power/freedom/etc. My biggest struggle right now is that while we are trying to put structure around everything in the form of well documented processes, procedures, and standards, that is damn-near impossible in a small organization. We don't have the resources to dedicate to it. Heck, I could spend a few weeks just identifying gaps. Correcting them seems like a losing battle.

N2IT

Yeah in that case you almost need to prioritize your fatty areas and attempt to make them LEAN. First and foremost IMO is a change management system/process. That is make or break in so many ways.

What high level processes do you have in place currently?

ptilsen

We have a change management process in place, and it works okay. Not perfect, but well enough. We have some processes documented and plenty automated in multiple areas of the business. But many of them aren't implemented/enforced properly and many others aren't designed fully. That's just the business side. On the purely technical side, there are dozens, probably over 100 technical procedures we should have documented that we currently don't (or barely do). We've made a lot of improvements, and I'd be dishonestly modest if I said I haven't had a big role in those improvements, but it always feels like an uphill battle, and it's hard to enjoy the accomplishments when there's always so much more to be done. At the end of the day, we have more client systems to support than we have the personnel for and no one's left to work on improving things on the back-end.

Anyway, not to get too deep into specifics there, but that has been my typical experience in SMB world. Too little structure and such, leading to bad implementations, poor support, major fires, and overworked IT professionals, among other problems. At the end of the day, building the back-end takes time and money the SMB either can't or won't spend, and the rest is not fun.

Mrock4

ptilsen wrote: »

My biggest struggle right now is that while we are trying to put structure around everything in the form of well documented processes, procedures, and standards, that is damn-near impossible in a small organization. We don't have the resources to dedicate to it. Heck, I could spend a few weeks just identifying gaps. Correcting them seems like a losing battle.

Yep. Without the proper resources and attention to devote to correcting/implementing processes, it'll never go anywhere. We have a lot of people at my organization, and people STILL have trouble following processes sometimes, so in a smaller environment it's that much harder.

Ultimately, I don't mind the processes in most cases. I don't want to sound shady here but, once you've earned the respect of those around you and your management, there's always 'bends' in the processes. That doesn't mean I don't follow them, but when I need something done quickly, it CAN get done quickly through various connections. From a management perspective, that's bad. From a team cohesiveness perspective, it's great because we are working together and not restricting productivity. That is rare though, generally we try hard to follow them.

On your overworked IT professionals comment- even though my organization has 4x the people as a SMB (just throwing that number out there to illustrate a point), our network is probably 8x larger, which means we have a LOT more work. I've never been so busy. That's good, and bad. Just depends on the day!

ptilsen

Mrock4 wrote: »

On your overworked IT professionals comment- even though my organization has 4x the people as a SMB (just throwing that number out there to illustrate a point), our network is probably 8x larger, which means we have a LOT more work. I've never been so busy. That's good, and bad. Just depends on the day!

It's true, but you also have more room for capacity changes. An employee too much or too few is not the end of the world. You can have the capacity for your busy times without being bored during the slow times. In an SMB environment, one employee too few means most of the staff might work an extra 10-15 hours a week. One employee too many means someone is about to get laid off.

Obviously every organization is different, but overall I find there is an economy of scale at play that greatly favors larger organizations, when it comes to IT. They can specialize better, maintaining nimble teams of SMEs appropriately staffed for the need they fulfill, rather than overburdened teams of JOATs who either have way too much to do or not enough.

Mrock4

I didn't mean to imply SMB IT pro's sit around or anything of that nature. I was just trying to illustrate my own experience, which has been that since being in an enterprise environment, I've had zero free time. I had a LITTLE at an SMB. Obviously your mileage may vary though

Everyone

It is all about being able to convey the ability to adapt and scale your experiences up during an interview.

Also, you don't have to jump from SMB straight to large Enterprise. You can go to SME (Small to Medium Enterprise), which may be an easier transition.

I've always worked (full time) in Enterprise class environments. Smallest environment I've ever worked on full time was ~3500 users. That is technically a SME. Largest was over 70,000, which is obviously a Large Enterprise. My only SMB exposure has been some brief part time side jobs here and there.

While in that large Enterprise environment, I did hire a guy with nothing more than SMB experience. He'd never worked anywhere with more than 200 users before. He had the technical skill we needed, and it seemed like he would be able to scale his skills up with minimal training.

When I worked in Enterprise environments that were in the 3000-6000 user range, it was often just myself, and maybe 2 or 3 other Systems Administrators. I was the SME (Subject Matter Expert in this case) for a couple technologies, and my co-workers were SMEs for others. Or I would be the primary person responsible for a handful of servers/technologies, and the alternate for those my co-workers were the primary for. IMHO that is an easy step up from being the SMB "JOAT". Slightly more specialized, slightly larger environment, but still keeping a wide skill set.

When you get up into the very large Enterprise, you will have a lot of "Systems Administrators", but they will be split up into different specialties, and they will only work on those specialties. You'll see things like an AD Team, a Windows Server Team, a Messaging Team, a Storage Team, an SCCM Team, etc. Coming from a background where you have experience in areas besides the one you start working in, has advantages. While it may be frustrating that you don't have permissions to go set something up that you know how to do, and have to wait for someone on another team to do it for you... if you have good people skills, you can use that to your advantage and get through that "red tape" as others put it faster, thus completing your projects quicker than someone without the experience in that area. You can also raise the BS flag when someone on another team claims they can't do something. It also gives you more flexibility when it comes time for promotions. Say there isn't anything open on your own team, but there is on another. You can apply internally and switch teams to move up the ladder.

paul78

I've worked in both large companies and small companies. Currently, I work for a large company (> 20k employees). Lately however, I've been thinking about moving back to a smaller and more nimble organization. My own personality is better suited for companies in a high-growth mode. Also, to distinguish what I mean - I not necessarily meaning a small company in terms of size - but really a company less than 10MM in revenues which is growing at a rate of 20-40%. That excites me more. I like working at small startups.

That's kinda how I ended at this current job - build a company - then sell it. I've been a few small startups. The last was the most successful. I've also worked for a few Fortune 500's.

The compensation at a larger company is better and more preditable. But the upside potential at a high-growth startup is more enticing to me.

Like you - I could be described as a JOAT. But in the roles that I play at different companies, that is a much more valuable talent to have. For me, I would find specializing to be too limiting.

jtoast

I made the jump via luck and bullshit to be quite honest. I took a two week contract position to help build a vista image (mainly testing drivers) and found that I got along really well with the rest of the team. When they needed a full disk encryption expert for a different a project they decided to give me the spot rather than pull a member of the team from his existing duties. When that project ended 10 months later they offered me a permanent position. 5 years later I now handle tier 3 application support, our global antivirus solution and am part of our APT incident response team.