Managed IT vs In-House IT for Architecture Practices: Which Makes Sense?

TL;DR For most UK architecture practices, which RIBA data shows are predominantly small and medium-sized, managed IT makes stronger financial and operational sense than in-house IT. The numbers rarely support the in-house model below around 80 people, and the specific IT demands of architecture (BIM software, large files, Autodesk licensing, hybrid working) mean the quality of the managed provider matters as much as the model itself. There is also a third option, co-managed IT, that works well for practices already carrying internal technical capability.

This question comes up fairly often in architecture and creative services, and I’ve noticed that it tends to be framed as a binary when, in practice, it is more of a spectrum.

The binary framing, where either you have someone in-house, or you outsource everything, misses the fact that most architecture practices exist somewhere in the middle. Maybe there is a director who handles IT on top of their actual job. Maybe there is a BIM manager who understands Revit server configurations but is not really an IT person. Maybe there is a part-time IT support person who comes in twice a week and keeps things running, mostly.

These arrangements work, until they do not. And the moment they stop working after a server failure, a ransomware attack, a sudden resignation, the cost of not having thought this through properly becomes very clear, very quickly.

So let’s think it through properly.

 

What does in-house IT look like at a 20-80 person architecture practice?

At 20 people, a practice that has in-house IT typically has one of three arrangements: a director or operations manager handling IT alongside their main role, a part-time contracted IT technician who visits regularly, or, occasionally, a junior IT support person employed full-time.

The full-time junior IT support role is where the economics start to become concrete. A full-time IT Support Engineer in the UK earns £27,000-£35,000 in base salary nationally, rising to £32,000-£42,000 in London. That headline figure understates the true employment cost considerably.

Cost component	Annual estimate (London, mid-range)
Base salary	£35,000
Employer National Insurance (13.8%)	£4,830
Employer pension (4% minimum)	£1,400
Recruitment cost (one-off, amortised over 2 years)	£3,500
Training and certification	£1,500
Tools and software licences	£1,200
Holiday cover (20 days — who covers IT during leave?)	Uncosted risk
Total direct employment cost	~£47,430 per year

At that cost, a 20-person practice is spending roughly £2,400 per user per year, or about £200/user/month. The practice has a single IT support person who may not have specialist knowledge in the areas that matter most: Revit performance optimisation, BIM server configuration, Autodesk licensing management, cybersecurity best practice.

By comparison, a comprehensive managed IT contract covering 20 users with a provider experienced in architecture typically runs £40-150/user/month, up to about £36,000 per year. That buys a team with specialist skills, 24/7 monitoring, defined SLAs, and no single point of failure.

At 50 to 80 people, the calculation starts to shift. A three-person in-house team (IT Manager, senior engineer, junior engineer) might cost £130,000-£180,000 in direct employment costs. At that headcount, the in-house team’s per-user cost begins to approach what a managed contract would cost for the same coverage.

 

What does a managed IT provider handle for architects?

A managed IT provider, MSP, takes on the day-to-day responsibility for your IT infrastructure, usually under a monthly contract with defined service levels. For an architecture practice specifically, a good MSP should cover:

• Helpdesk support for all users by phone, remote access, and on-site when needed
• Proactive monitoring of devices, servers, and cloud environments for performance and security issues
• Patch management keeping operating systems and software updated, which is the single most impactful thing you can do to reduce security exposure
• Endpoint security antivirus as a minimum, ideally a monitored detection-and-response solution that actively hunts for threats rather than waiting for an alert
• Backup monitoring and testing not just running backups but verifying they work and testing recovery
• Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace management user licensing, SharePoint configuration, Teams setup, permissions governance
• Hardware procurement and lifecycle management
• Strategic IT advice helping the practice make informed decisions about technology investment

What a standard MSP may not include, and worth asking explicitly about: Autodesk-specific support (licence management, Revit server configuration, BIM 360 / Autodesk Construction Cloud troubleshooting), large-format printer and plotter support, and in-depth assistance with architecture-specific visualisation workflows.

This is not a criticism of MSPs generally, but rather a reflection of the fact that architecture is a specialised sector. When evaluating providers, the question to ask is: “Have you managed IT for architecture firms before, and specifically, have you dealt with Revit worksharing issues and Autodesk licensing?” The answer tells you a lot.

From RIBA data Architecture firms are predominantly small. 78% employ fewer than ten people. For these practices, the idea of in-house IT is largely theoretical as the economics simply do not work. A managed IT relationship is not outsourcing; it is the standard model for firms their size.

 

What happens when your sole IT person leaves?

This question deserves its own section because it is the most consistently underestimated operational risk in small and medium-sized professional services firms.

When the person who manages your IT, whether that is an in-house employee, a freelance contractor, or an informal arrangement with someone technically minded in the team, suddenly, several things happen at once:

• You may not have credentials for systems they managed
• Configuration documentation, if it exists at all, is probably out of date
• You do not know what you do not know; the backups might be running, or they might have silently failed three months ago
• Any in-progress IT projects or planned upgrades come to an immediate stop
• Your remaining staff are supporting each other with their collective knowledge, which is not the same as IT support

The answer to this is not necessarily to hire two in-house IT people. At 20 or 30 people, the economics of that do not work. The answer is to structure IT in a way that is not dependent on any single individual. A managed IT provider running a monitored, documented environment is inherently more resilient to personnel changes than an individual carrying everything in their head.

Key-person risk is also worth thinking about on the client side of the IT relationship. A large, well-run MSP has documented runbooks for every client environment. If the engineer who manages your account leaves that MSP, their replacement can be brought up to speed from documentation. The institutional knowledge is held by the firm, not the individual.

 

Can you combine in-house and managed IT (the co-managed model)?

Yes, and for architecture practices in the 30–80 person range that already have some internal technical capability, the co-managed model has its benefits.

Co-managed IT means the practice retains an internal IT resource, typically a BIM manager, systems administrator, or technically capable operations person, while engaging an MSP to handle everything else: security monitoring, backup, helpdesk overflow, specialist project work, and strategic oversight.

Why this works particularly well for architecture:

Architecture firms often have someone internally who understands the specific software environment deeply; Revit worksharing configurations, Autodesk Construction Cloud setups, rendering server management. This is genuine specialist knowledge that most generalist MSPs do not have. It makes sense to keep that person focused on the software side of the work.

What they typically cannot do is also manage security monitoring, patch management, helpdesk ticketing, infrastructure monitoring, and hardware lifecycle on top of that. And critically, they do not provide the coverage depth an MSP brings; evenings, weekends, holidays, sick leave.

A co-managed arrangement gives the practice the best of both: deep internal software expertise alongside the infrastructure resilience and security posture of a professional managed service.

Research suggests 48% of UK organisations now use some form of co-managed IT model (Gartner, 2025). It is not a niche arrangement, bur rather a sign of the direction the market is moving for mid-sized professional services firms.

Practical note Co-managed IT works best when roles are clearly defined from the start. Who owns security policy? Who handles helpdesk escalations? Who makes hardware procurement decisions? Ambiguity here creates gaps, and gaps in IT coverage are where problems live.

If you are reviewing how IT is structured at your practice, whether that is a full move to managed, a co-managed arrangement, or simply a second opinion on what you currently have, we are happy to have an honest conversation.

 

Next Steps?

If your architecture practice is reviewing its IT setup, whether that’s a specific pain point or a broader strategic question, we’re happy to have a conversation about what good looks like for firms your size. Take our free Mini IT Security Audit to see where you stand.