New
#11
I don't want to 'wade in', but just wanted to offer my viewpoint - having read the discussion thus far.
Remote system management - of any kind - inherently carries an additional risk to on-site system management. I think that is the point here that ties your respective positions together.
Like yourself, I run a technical consultancy - albeit in London. Whilst I have the capability to do remote system administration - there are times when the nature of the required work dictates that work is carried out on-site. This is a decision, on the most part, I take in order to mitigate risk and protect my ability to deliver a successful service. Likewise, there are times when the client insists that the work is carried out on-site in case something goes wrong.
Given your uncertainty around how to deal with the issues around liability, alongside providing your (potential) clients the service they need, let me outline how I do things - perhaps some of this may be useful for you to adopt/consider. My approach is broadly thus:
1. Understand the work required by the client. Naturally, in any industry, before undergoing any type of service-based work, it makes sense to be clear in what needs to be achieved. This helps with expectation-setting, but also with decision-taking about how to undertake said work.
2. Present a Statement of Work (if applicable) that specifies the work to be undertaken, the desired outcome and - perhaps most crucially, when considering your conundrum - the risk factors in play and the steps taken to mitigate them.
3. Agreement from all parties on the work to be carried out and work is scheduled in. This agreement should be undertaken once all parties are confident in the work due to take place, the expected outcomes and the level of risk involved.
4. Work is undertaken and - hopefully - everything goes to plan. If it doesn't, the SoW would normally include a back-out plan to allow you to revert back to 'the way things were' and that gives you room to breathe and deal with the outcome with the client rationally.
In a nutshell, incorporating the different elements into your SoW will ensure you feel comfortable with what you are doing. The reality is that if you can't confidently formulate the SoW - for example, if you feel the risk is too high to do it remotely - then you shouldn't be doing that work remotely.
For me, the process gives me a framework within which to rationally take decisions, whilst at the same time presenting that information to the client for review.
Ultimately, if you or your client are not happy with the work being conducted remotely, then you should do it on-site (if that mitigates the risks sufficiently). If you are able to competently present this to the client - along with the reasons why site-work is the best option - then the client can take the decision as to whether it is worth the extra cost of flying you out there to complete the work.
If they turn around and say 'OK, do it remotely - we'll take the risk' then at least you have acceptance of that extra risk from them. That being said, as a responsible operator, if you believe the risk is too high then it is your responsibility to impart that viewpoint on them, irrespective of costs. Sometimes, it may mean you lose work - but it is all part-and-parcel of the business world.
I am happy to discuss this further and would invite any questions you might have!