The problem with deploy-and-hand-off
The standard model for infrastructure consulting is to deploy a system, hand it over to the client, and move on. This model has a well-documented failure rate that the industry has largely chosen to ignore. The client receives a working system and a responsibility they may not have the capacity to fulfil.
Growing businesses at 10–50 employees rarely have dedicated infrastructure staff. The person closest to the system is often the CTO or a senior developer who has other work to do. When a monitoring alert fires at 11pm, when a security patch needs to be applied before it becomes a vulnerability, when a version upgrade requires a migration script run in a specific order — these operational realities fall to whoever is available, regardless of whether they have the context to handle them well.
The result is infrastructure that works until it doesn't, with no early warning system and no clear recovery path when something goes wrong.
What operational ownership means in practice
When TrySelfHost assumes ongoing operational responsibility for a system, we become accountable for its day-to-day running. This is not a monitoring subscription or a support ticket queue. It is a direct operational relationship where we are responsible for the health of the systems we manage.
In practice, this covers several areas. Monitoring: we watch the systems we operate. Resource utilisation, error rates, service availability, and backup completion are checked continuously and reviewed periodically. When something looks wrong, we investigate before you notice a problem.
Patching and upgrades: security patches are applied within defined response windows. Version upgrades are scheduled, tested in staging, and applied during agreed maintenance windows. You receive notification before and after, not a surprise change followed by an apology.
Incident response: when a system has a problem, we handle it. You do not need to diagnose the issue, find the right person, or reconstruct undocumented configuration. We have the context because we built and operate the system.
Documentation maintenance: as systems evolve, documentation is kept current. Runbooks reflect the actual current configuration, not the configuration from deployment day.
Capacity and growth planning
Systems deployed for a 20-person business may need architectural adjustment at 60. Storage that was adequate at deployment fills. Query patterns that were performant under light load degrade under production traffic. Open-source software releases major versions that require migration planning.
Ongoing operations includes periodic capacity and architecture reviews — typically quarterly — where we assess whether the deployed systems are still appropriately sized and configured for your current and projected needs. Where changes are required, we plan and execute them before they become incidents.
This long view is what separates an operational engagement from reactive support. We are not waiting for you to report a problem. We are managing the systems with enough visibility to anticipate and prevent most problems before they affect your team.
Transparency and reporting
Operational responsibility requires visibility on both sides. We provide regular reporting on the systems we manage: uptime, incident summaries, maintenance performed, patches applied, and upcoming work. This is not a dashboard you log into — it is a periodic summary that keeps you informed without requiring you to develop operational expertise.
We are also direct when something requires your attention or decision-making. If a system needs architectural changes that carry cost or risk implications, we describe the situation clearly and present options. We do not obscure operational complexity or present only good news.
The relationship works best when both parties understand the current state of the systems and the current posture. We maintain that shared understanding as a core part of the engagement.