When two closely connected businesses grow in different directions, separating their IT systems becomes a natural step. Maybe they’re restructuring, bringing in new ownership, or simply maturing into distinct organizations. On paper, it sounds simple enough: split the network, split the apps, split the shared resources.

But companies rarely realize just how intertwined their environments have become over the years — and even more importantly, how much work it truly takes to unwind everything cleanly.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
A half-finished IT separation is actually riskier and more expensive than doing nothing at all.

And more often than not, companies stop halfway for one major reason: cost.

Why Companies Don’t Finish the Split

Most separation projects start with enthusiasm. Leaders agree it’s the “right move,” everyone feels aligned and the MSP starts untangling the mess. Then the real-world expenses show up, and the brakes get slammed.

Here are the most common sticking points I see:

1. Additional Internet Circuits

“If we’re in the same office, why can’t we just share the internet?”

“Why can’t we use separate networks and VLANs”

Because true separation requires:

• Dedicated bandwidth

• Unique public IPs

• Separate firewalls and routing

And that means ordering a new circuit — which comes with installation delays and monthly recurring costs. Many companies don’t want to absorb that.

2. New Copiers and Scanners

Shared multifunction devices are one of the biggest hidden dependencies.
They integrate with:

• Authentication systems

• Email servers

• File shares

• Scanning workflows

Sharing these also requires that holes be poked in the separate networks when the issue above was forced. Some copiers can’t operate in separate networks thus forcing the separate networks to be re-merged.

When companies find out they need a second copier (and a second maintenance contract), the project suddenly feels less appealing.

3. Additional Servers or Virtualization Hosts

If both companies have been sharing:

• A Hyper-V or VMware host

• A Synology or NAS unit

• A general-purpose Windows server

Then properly separating means:

• New hardware

• New licensing

• Migration time

• Rebuilding roles and applications

At this point leadership often says, “Do we really need another server? We can just run new VMs on this server”
(Short answer: Yes, if you want true separation.)

4. Separate Subscriptions or Licensing Models

Things like:

• Microsoft 365

• Phone systems

• Security tools

• Backup solutions

All cost more when purchased for two companies instead of bundled together. Many companies underestimate how much they were saving by sharing.

5. Project Fatigue

Long separation projects feel like moving houses — exciting at first, exhausting halfway in. When the work becomes disruptive and expensive, some leaders start asking, “Can we pause here and finish the rest later?”

Unfortunately, that “pause” is where all the danger lives.

Why Partial Separation Is Worse Than Staying Combined

Once the process begins but doesn’t finish, businesses end up in a strange in-between space. Systems are no longer unified, but they’re not isolated either. And that’s where things unravel.

Security Risks Multiply

A half-separated network is basically a shared network with extra steps.
You still have:

• Overlapping permissions

• Unclear access boundaries

• Lateral attack paths

• Shared Wi-Fi or switches

• Old accounts lingering in the wrong places

A breach in one company can still affect the other — just in more confusing ways.

Compliance Falls Apart

No auditor is going to accept:

“We’re mostly separate.”

If data, access, or authentication flows across company lines — even unintentionally — you’ve broken the chain of custody. You also lose the ability to generate clean logs, enforce policies, or prove data isolation.

MSP Tooling Goes Blind

This is the part most businesses never see.

When two companies share even part of an environment, our tools can’t reliably tell:

• Which devices belong to which company

• Which vulnerabilities apply to which organization

• Which endpoint belongs to whose security policy

• Whether an alert is relevant, or belongs to the “other guys”

You can’t get an accurate cybersecurity posture when the underlying environment is blurred.
A vulnerability scan shouldn’t show two companies’ worth of assets, but that’s exactly what happens in a partial split.

Support Turns Into Guesswork

Helpdesk issues go from straightforward to painful:

• “This printer used to work, but now it won’t.”

• “My scanner is sending to the wrong email tenant.”

• “I can’t access what I used to access.”

• “Why do we still share a Wi-Fi password?”

Tickets take longer because no one knows which system is responsible for what anymore.

The Long-Term Cost Is Always Higher

Here’s the kicker:
Stopping in the middle doesn’t save money — it only delays the spend.

In the meantime, it creates:

• More technical debt

• Higher MSP costs

• Increased cybersecurity risk

• Broken workflows

• Redundant work that eventually has to be undone and redone

Finishing a separation after living in a half-split state for months (or years) always costs significantly more than doing it right from the beginning.

Commit or Don’t Start

If you’re considering an IT separation, you have two good options:

1. Commit fully.
Plan the work, budget appropriately, and follow through to true isolation.

2. Or wait until you’re ready to commit.
Rushing into a separation without the resources or alignment to finish it only creates risk.

There’s no safe middle ground.

My Final Thoughts

Separating IT systems isn’t just a technical exercise — it’s a strategic commitment that affects security, compliance, daily operations, and future scalability. If two companies are going to operate independently, their technology needs to reflect that independence fully.

Do it right, or don’t do it yet. But don’t live in the messy middle.