The Documentation Gap That MSPs Can Turn Into a Differentiator

Here’s something most MSPs already know but rarely talk about openly: the documentation that should exist across a managed programme often doesn’t. Or it exists in fragments. Or it lives on the MSP’s systems in a format their client can’t access.

This isn’t a failing specific to one provider. It’s a pattern that shows up consistently across programmes of all sizes, across all the major players. The operational pressures of running a large, complex programme don’t naturally create space for documentation rigour. Things get built, things get fixed, things get changed — and the record of why and how lags behind.

The question isn’t whether gaps exist. It’s what you do about them.

Because the MSPs that get ahead of this — proactively, transparently, before a client audit surfaces it — aren’t just managing a risk. They’re creating something most of their competitors don’t have: genuine, demonstrable proof of programme quality.

What we found when we looked properly

We were brought into a global business to conduct a compliance and risk audit across their extended workforce programme. The programme was MSP-managed. Relationships were long-established. Nobody expected to find much.

What we found instead was a documentation landscape that was incomplete in ways the client hadn’t anticipated and the MSP hadn’t surfaced. Supplier compliance records that couldn’t be verified independently. Process documentation that described how things were supposed to work rather than how they actually did. Audit trails that existed in the MSP’s systems but weren’t accessible to the client organisation.

None of this was the result of bad intent. It was the result of a programme that had grown organically, been managed operationally, and never had a formal review of what governance documentation should exist, who should hold it, and what the client’s independent access should look like.

The interesting part — and the relevant part for MSPs reading this — was the response when we raised initial findings with one of the key suppliers. The substance of the response was: this kind of gap is common across large managed programmes. Which is probably true. It didn’t change what needed to happen next.

The commercial case for fixing it first

Compliance audits commissioned by clients are reactive by nature. By the time an independent party is brought in to look, the relationship is already in a position where trust needs to be rebuilt alongside the documentation.

The MSPs with the strongest client relationships are the ones who don’t wait for that moment. They know what good documentation looks like. They conduct their own regular reviews. And critically — they make their client’s access to that documentation part of their service proposition, not a concession they make under pressure.

This matters commercially in three specific ways.

Renewal. Clients who can see their programme clearly — what’s working, what the compliance position is, what evidence exists — have far more confidence in the MSP managing it. That confidence translates directly into renewal decisions. Clients don’t leave suppliers they trust with full transparency.

Scope. MSPs that demonstrate governance rigour create the conditions for expanded scope. If a client can see the evidence that their current programme is well-managed, they’re far more likely to extend work to that same partner. The MSPs that struggle to grow client relationships are often the ones where the client doesn’t have enough visibility to feel confident extending trust.

Differentiation. In a market where most MSPs compete on similar capability, process documentation and governance rigour is genuinely differentiating — because most don’t lead with it. The ones who can walk a prospective client through what their documentation standards look like, and how they make that visible to clients, are having a different kind of commercial conversation.

What closing the gap actually looks like

In the engagement above, once the initial audit findings were clear, the work shifted from identifying gaps to addressing them. That meant three things running in parallel.

First, a prioritisation exercise — not everything needed to be fixed at the same speed. We worked through what carried genuine compliance risk, what affected the client’s independent oversight, and what was good practice but lower urgency. That gave the MSP a sequenced remediation plan rather than an overwhelming list.

Second, a documentation rebuild for the priority areas. This isn’t glamorous work, but it matters. Process documentation that reflects how things actually work. Compliance records that are accessible to both parties. Supplier performance evidence that can be reviewed independently of the MSP’s own reporting.

Third — and this is the piece most often skipped — a client communication plan. The client knew gaps had been identified. What they needed was a clear, credible account of what had been found, what was being done, and what the timeline looked like. Done well, this communication doesn’t damage the relationship. It strengthens it. The MSP is now the party actively managing the remediation, not the one being managed through it.

The items that fell outside the remediation scope — gaps that couldn’t be fully closed within the current programme structure — were documented clearly, flagged with the client, and built into future audit cycles. That transparency, handled correctly, is also part of the differentiator.

The question worth asking before someone else does

Most client organisations aren’t actively auditing their MSP-managed programmes right now. But the direction of travel on workforce compliance and governance is clear — accountability is moving back toward the end client, and with it, scrutiny of what documentation and oversight exists.

The MSPs that will benefit from that shift are the ones who have already done this work. Not because they were asked to, but because they understood the commercial case for doing it.

If you’re confident your documentation is where it needs to be, and your clients have the independent access they’d want in a formal review — that’s a strong position to be in. If you’re less certain, that’s worth exploring before someone else explores it for you.

We work with MSPs to audit programme documentation, identify and prioritise gaps, support remediation, and help position that work in a way that clients see as evidence of quality — not an admission of previous shortfall.

If that’s a conversation worth having, we’d like to have it.

Book a conversation about what this could look like for your programme →

RedWizard — Operating at the heart of the workforce ecosystem.