It is definitely not having sufficient budget, although I doubt management was "trying" to be cheap. They probably have 1-2 IT staff, who have been paid signif

It is definitely not having sufficient budget, although I doubt management was "trying" to be cheap. They probably have 1-2 IT staff, who have been paid significantly under market value compared to private sector. Management was not management of an IT organization, and probably did not really understand the trade-offs or what they'd lose by not spending more money on IT. Their IT staff was probably super busy and over-worked and also (not to throw them under the bus) not experienced enough to really advise them, and if they had and had tried to advise them, would management have decided that doing less programmatic work to pay for it, and having IT people at least temporarily spend less time on whatever they do to support regular business, to set up and support backups, was worth it? Maybe, maybe not. Again, the managers probably have little experience with IT. The whole organization is probably well under 100 people. Source: I work in non-profits. Why is HN always focused on suggesting there's a person who could have easily made the right choice if they weren't an idiot?