Pros & Cons of insourcing v outsourcing

N

nnn

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi, as mentioned in my "I'm new here" post, I work for a large manufacturing organisation and am involved in purchasing scaffolding services.

I know there'd be a logical vested interest for some of you on this board, but what are your thoughts on the following options for providing our scaffolding requirements? Pros, cons, pitfalls, legislative/regulatory concerns etc? Ta!

EDIT: the following options don't need to be replied to one-by-one, numbering them was just a way to make it easier to refer to one option over another if needed in any replies - any general comments on why one approach might be better than another still gratefully accepted!

1. Outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management, labour and equipment for all our requirements

2. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management, labour and equipment for all our requirements - EDIT: please ignore, obviously the same as option 1 :eek:

3. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the labour and equipment for all our requirements but for our engineers to manage the work

4. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management and labour for all our requirements but for us to buy all the equipment we're likely to need for the course of the contract

5. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the equipment for all our requirements but for us to provide the management and labour

6. Insourcing all the work - management, labour and equipment to be provided by us.

7. Anything I've missed, obvious or otherwise.

Very broadly, the immediate thoughts are that going for option one means that we should be able to rely on the scaffolding company for expertise on how to solve any particular access issue, to choose the best option for us and to ensure we're complaint with all legal/H&S requirements etc.

Option six on the other hand, should mean that we have more control over what gets done and potentially there should be a cost improvement as we won't be paying for the profit needed by the contractor. However it may expose us to risk either through not having all the right expertise or understanding in the management team or the labour and we might not have all the required equipment on site (whereas a scaffolding company may have more equipment at their head office / main depot etc).

Any thoughts, comments or opinions gratefully accepted. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
mspence said:
That post has done my head in
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it is a bit lengthy. :)

That said, do you have any general comments on why one approach in particular might be better than another?
 
Option 1
Carry out due diligence, trust and commit to a scaffold company and work together.
 
Choose one company on a framework and build relationships. If the company is good then all you would need to know in regards to regulation, laws and compliance will come from them. You'll soon find out if they are good. What do you manufacture and where?
 
Sorry nnn thats way above my head i aint even sure what your saying , you sure your involved with scaffolding :toung:
 
Look at HSWT giving it all the Big One, making out he knows what nnn is on about :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
oh you mean using subbies HSWT ?

nnn why feek didnt you just say that in the first place fella
 
Being a NASC member does not make you a better company, it just means you paid for a pretty logo and there are plenty of bad scaffolds erected by NASC members.
 
Proscaff said:
Being a NASC member does not make you a better company, it just means you paid for a pretty logo and there are plenty of bad scaffolds erected by NASC members.
Click to expand...

Thats not what the NASC would say!!!

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

Aren't the NASC the driving force behind the often quoted TG 20 series?
 
any kittens i have 3 wee lassies would love a cat like that one phil.

as regards the NASC as much as i do have some issues with the way they have taken hold of the industry over the last 15 years or so,I was on an HSE Site for some research and the goon who was reporting on an investigation did mention the NASC and their TG20 guidelines.;)
 
The answer to your questionnaire is leave the scaffolding to scaffolding firms,this will be your most cost effective option,it will prove to be a very exspensive exsercise to try and cut costs involving an industry you appear to know nothing about,as for nasc accredited company's,you would find the cheaper option would be to use a non nasc company as their rates are usually significantly cheaper,so you secure the work/project and then do what everyone else in your position does and outsource your work to a scaffolding contractor,there's plenty on here who'd do the work without ripping you off,hope this helps;)
 
1. Outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management, labour and equipment for all our requirements

This is by far the best option, although you will pay for it. As BF mentioned, leave it to the guys who know how to do it from start to finish.

2. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management, labour and equipment for all our requirements

Not too sure what the difference between 1 and 2 is?

3. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the labour and equipment for all our requirements but for our engineers to manage the work

Second best option but your engineers will require a fair bit of knowledge depending on the type of work you are trying to achieve and the additional workload could see your engineers waste time trying to keep track of what's going on and where instead of doing what they do best.

4. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the management and labour for all our requirements but for us to buy all the equipment we're likely to need for the course of the contract

Everyone has differing opinions, but for me this is the worst option of them all unless it is made crystal clear who is responsible for what. On a very small scale we do get involved with this from time to time and what I have discovered is a scaffolder is only ever going to be as good as the guy who planned the job. Not all will agree with that, but you have to get the right men on the right job at the right time with the right material. It takes a wee bit of experience to recognise these factors and miss any out or get any wrong and you are looking at long delays.

5. Partially outsourcing the work - using a scaffolding/access company to provide the equipment for all our requirements but for us to provide the management and labour

This could be a good option as long as you have a strong management team which would be key to going down this route. I'm guessing on the type of work you are doing but hire companies can be brutal when it comes to back charging any losses or damaged kit.

6. Insourcing all the work - management, labour and equipment to be provided by us.

By far the most cost effective option, the downside being you have no one to call should it go horribly wrong. It's not rocket science, if you are willing to pay the top rate you will get a top team, it works on a sliding scale from there.

7. Anything I've missed, obvious or otherwise.

Very broadly, the immediate thoughts are that going for option one means that we should be able to rely on the scaffolding company for expertise on how to solve any particular access issue, to choose the best option for us and to ensure we're complaint with all legal/H&S requirements etc.

Option six on the other hand, should mean that we have more control over what gets done and potentially there should be a cost improvement as we won't be paying for the profit needed by the contractor. However it may expose us to risk either through not having all the right expertise or understanding in the management team or the labour and we might not have all the required equipment on site (whereas a scaffolding company may have more equipment at their head office / main depot etc).

Any thoughts, comments or opinions gratefully accepted. Thanks![/QUOTE]

I would suggest, your initial findings are quite correct but a lot depends on exactly what you are trying to do and how long for.
 
Dicanio2006 said:
Choose one company on a framework and build relationships. If the company is good then all you would need to know in regards to regulation, laws and compliance will come from them. You'll soon find out if they are good. What do you manufacture and where?
Click to expand...

We're a large company, manufacturing a lot of things on a lot of sites across the UK. Sorry for the slightly cryptic reply - I can't risk giving away too much details on the off-chance our current scaffolding company (or its competitors) are on this forum.

Havespannerwilltravel said:
He is obviously in procurement so has to find a long winded way of saying things. His options 1 and 2 look remarkably similar to my trained eye!!
Click to expand...
aom said:
Not too sure what the difference between 1 and 2 is?
Click to expand...
Sorry gentlemen, they are the same. Glad you spotted the deliberate mistake... ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom