Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Rethinking The QBR

For almost a decade now, the IT industry has treated QBRs as if they were set in stone. An absolutely mandatory cadence that every MSP should adhere to with every client. The only true path to customer success. But the reality is that the MSP landscape has changed (a lot), and when that happens, it’s worth pushing back on long-held ideas once in a while to make sure they still hold up.

That’s exactly what my recent conversation with Luis Giraldo turned into. A thought experiment in the real value of QBRs. Not just what they were originally intended to do, but whether they still serve their purpose in the modern MSP-client relationship.

Luis is the Chief Evangelist at ScalePad and a longtime voice in the channel. In this conversation, he challenges the conventional thinking around QBRs and makes the case that some clients are actually better off without them. Along the way, he outlines the history, the friction points, and the hidden trust issues that QBRs often create without anyone realizing it.

Whether you’ve run hundreds of these meetings or still feel awkward calling them “quarterly,” this breakdown might give you permission to rethink the process entirely.

The Origin of the QBR

Before the MSP model became what it is today, most client relationships were built in person. That physical presence created space for conversations that weren’t just about tickets or projects. But when providers adopted RMMs and shifted to remote service delivery, that casual facetime disappeared. Luis points out that this shift left a hole that had to be filled somehow. “When MSPs first moved from on-site to remote management (thanks to the RMM), they lost the natural relationship-building that came from being physically present. That shift led to the invention of the QBR, because providers needed a way to advance opportunities and projects in a structured way. It became the stand-in for all the engagement that used to happen organically.”

As the industry matured, that structure became the norm. QBRs gave MSPs a repeatable format to show value, outline the next steps, and justify their recommendations. But in those early years, the conversation was still deeply technical. “Back then, MSPs were still very tactical in their relationships,” Luis says. “The focus was on lifecycle management of equipment, infrastructure, and standards, so the QBR became a formal way to package all of that. It was less about business outcomes and more about maintaining control of the technical roadmap.”

Why QBRs Create Friction

Most MSPs want to believe these meetings are a value-add. That they’re strategic. That clients will appreciate the time and attention these meetings represent. But in practice, many customers have grown to reject them. As a result, they go unscheduled, get rescheduled or turn into one-sided technical updates that leave the client wondering why they bothered to show up in the first place. No matter how you look at it and whose fault it is, this tension exists because the client just doesn’t see the benefit. And that turns something meant to strengthen the relationship into a point of friction instead.

Giraldo sees this misalignment all the time. “Many MSPs struggle because clients don’t always see the value in QBRs,” he says. “From the customer’s perspective, the meetings often turn into long talks about servers, networks, and replacement cycles. No CEO wants to sit through a roadmap of technical projects that don’t connect to their bigger goals.”

The problem is not always the meeting itself, but the content being delivered. When QBRs get weighed down by operational minutiae, the business conversation disappears. And when that happens, clients start to tune out. What’s worse is that this breakdown often goes unnoticed by the MSP, who may be walking away from the meeting feeling like they did everything right.

Adding to the disconnect is a bigger issue facing the industry as a whole: sameness. “Commoditization has also made QBRs less effective,” Luis explains. “Twenty years ago, if you had RMM tools and the MSP down the street didn’t, that was a differentiator. Now every provider offers the same stack, so repeating it in a QBR just reinforces the sameness.” What should be a space for clarity and direction instead becomes a reminder of how interchangeable the service feels. And when that’s the takeaway, the QBR starts working against you instead of for you.

The Trusted Advisor Trap

To fix this problem, every MSP is told the same thing: become the “trusted advisor.” But what often gets lost in that advice is the difference between being trusted and being impactful. MSPs who are consistent with QBRs tend to delegate them as the business grows. The founder hands them off to account managers or junior staff and the cadence is upheld, but the quality of conversation is reduced. What should be strategic business check-ins evolve into something more watered-down entirely. The QBR eventually becomes a formality and the client feels it.

“MSPs have been taught to become trusted advisors, but that usually builds relationship trust, not impact trust,” Luis Giraldo explains. “Relationship trust is about being likable and reliable, but it doesn’t prove business outcomes. Without impact, the QBR can actually reinforce the idea that the MSP is just another vendor.”

The irony is that in trying to scale a client engagement model, MSPs often dilute the very thing that made those relationships meaningful. Account managers become the face of the conversation, but they’re frequently equipped with recycled agendas and templated scorecards. “True trustworthiness comes from showing vision, alignment, and impact on the customer’s goals,” Luis says. “If the QBR is only about selling more projects or enforcing standards, it becomes self-oriented, which erodes that trust. That is why so many QBRs fall short.”

Capacity & Pricing Challenges 

Even when MSPs believe in the value of QBRs, they often struggle to deliver them consistently or effectively. Part of the issue is structural. Most pricing models were designed to support tactical service delivery, not strategic engagement. When there’s no margin for true vCIO work or customer success leadership, QBRs end up being crammed into an already overloaded calendar.

“One of the problems is that MSPs built their pricing models around tactical service delivery,” says Luis. “Per-user and per-device fees don’t leave enough margin to fund deeper strategic engagement like vCIO or customer success. So when they try to add QBRs, they’re doing it without the people or the budget to do it properly.”

This often leads to a well-meaning but poorly executed process. Someone in an account management role gets tasked with prepping the deck, leading the meeting, and following up afterward, all while still managing tickets and putting out fires. It’s not that the intention is wrong. It’s that the model doesn’t support what’s being promised and the result shows.

Segmentation As A Solution

These issues often go unresolved due to the fact that many MSPs believe that every client deserves the same QBR experience. Same cadence, same agenda, same output. But this one-size-fits-all approach is exactly what creates internal strain and client apathy in the first place. Luis Giraldo suggests that the solution lies in segmentation, not just of accounts, but also of expectations.

“If you hand one standardized QBR process to an account manager and tell them to run it with every client, capacity becomes a problem right away,” Luis says. “Lower maturity or lower appetite clients won’t engage at that level anyway. That is why segmentation is critical, because it helps you tailor the depth and cadence of engagement to the type of client you are working with.”

This doesn’t mean leaving smaller clients behind. It means meeting them where they are. Luis explains that “you don’t need six hours of prep for a D-segment customer, but you still need a way to maintain a relationship with them.” The key is to stay connected without draining internal resources or overserving accounts that aren’t asking for it.

In practical terms, this means uncoupling the idea that more meetings equal more value. Luis puts it clearly: “The goal is to keep talking to smaller clients with lighter touches, without confusing frequency with depth. That keeps you relevant without burning resources on the wrong accounts.” Strategic engagement doesn’t have to mean equal engagement. It just has to be appropriate for the client in front of you.

A New Form Of Client Meetings

Segmentation doesn’t just solve capacity and pricing issues. It clears the path for those highly-desired strategic conversations to actually happen. When MSPs stop forcing a full QBR cycle on every client and start tailoring engagement to fit maturity and appetite, they free up time and attention to go deeper where it matters. That shift makes it easier to move beyond project roadmaps and into conversations that connect technology to business goals.

“A big part of evolving beyond QBRs is shifting the conversation to outcomes and goals,” Luis Giraldo says. “Smaller clients often can’t articulate business goals clearly, but you can uncover them by asking about how the business actually makes money and where friction exists. Once you connect projects to those goals, the customer starts to see the value for themselves.”

This shift is less about simplifying the meeting and more about making it meaningful. When clients are led toward clarity, they participate more. They engage. And most importantly, they feel like the conversation is about them, not just the MSP’s templated agenda. That’s where alignment starts to take root.

Luis explains it with a simple, but wise truth: “People reject what they are told and accept what they conclude. If your QBR is just a sales pitch, the client resists it, but if you help them connect the dots between a project and their own stated goals, they buy in. That alignment is what makes the meeting meaningful.”

The Future Is Consultative

MSPs are now approaching a fork in the road. One direction leads to becoming a true consultative partner. The other leads back to being a reseller with tools to pitch. According to Giraldo, this moment demands clarity, because how MSPs choose to show up in client conversations will determine which path they take.

“We are at a point where MSPs need to decide what kind of provider they want to be,” Luis says. “Some will move into consultative roles, helping clients define problems and coordinate complex solutions, while others will fall back into being resellers of prepackaged tools. The fork in the road is clear, and QBRs will either evolve or become irrelevant.”

The pressure to evolve isn’t just philosophical. It’s being accelerated by the pace of innovation. AI and automation are rewriting the rules for how problems get solved and who gets to solve them. MSPs that lean into consultative work will become trusted interpreters of this change. Those who wait to be told what’s needed may find themselves cut out of the conversation altogether.

“AI and automation are forcing another curve jump in the industry,” Luis explains. “MSPs that use QBRs to drive strategic, consultative conversations will differentiate, while others will just wait for customers to ask for solutions and then resell them. The QBR has to adapt to survive in that environment.”

Conclusion

My conclusion from this conversation was that QBRs aren’t broken and they’re certainly not irrelevant (yet). They’re just misunderstood. What started as a practical way to stay connected became a ritual that many MSPs now perform out of obligation, not impact. Luis Giraldo isn’t suggesting we throw them out altogether. He’s asking us to rethink them. To strip them down. To rebuild them around what clients actually need, not what the industry assumes they want.

The truth is, some clients don’t need a QBR at all. Others need something entirely different than what’s being delivered. When you start with segmentation, build toward strategic clarity, and stay focused on outcomes, the QBR stops being a checkbox and starts becoming a tool that actually works. It will not look the same for every client. And that is exactly the point.

MSPs who embrace this kind of segmentation will find it easier to deliver value in ways that clients recognize and trust. That trust, when earned through relevance instead of routine, is what creates the kind of long-term relationships QBRs were meant to support in the first place.