At one time there was an additional head count requirement put forward to the Human Resource Department at the beginning of the year, to provide the resource mainly to support the business expansion and Project/Operational Engineering for respective Product Port Folio, as below:
This situation is giving the opportunity to look at the “Make or Buy” concept in terms of providing the competent resources. Competent in this case means engineers having adequate ability or quality proven with B-Level Certification of respective product port folio.
With the given head-count requirements and the option of “Make or Buy”, in which “make” would mean, build/have the competence in-house and “buy” would mean to buy the service of competencies from out-sourcing (head hunters or other service provisioning companies), several factors need to be considered, such as:
The Qualitative (Quality) Attribute, meaning the proof of competence relevance to the requirements
The Quantitative (Time and Cost), regarding the time and budget to acquire the resources
Specific Product Attributes
In order to assess the possibilities, the first step is to list the pros and contras between the Make/Build and Buy by looking from the management point of view, as the following table:
Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives
For more detail requirement analysis, two main attributes of resources are compiled as below:
The feasible ranges for each product port folio and considering the factors of Technology Application in Country and Technical Complexity gives us the Specific Attributes for minimum Knowledge Level Requirement as follows:
Selection of the preferred alternatives
The first selection to the decision is very much influenced by the Attributes Time and Quality aka Competency through the technical complexity from the product port folios. Even though the budget was not allocated at the beginning, management still has the ability to use the contingency. The combination of Time and Technical Complexity using the Satisficing Noncompensatory Model will look as below:
Performance Monitoring & Post Evaluation of Results
From the pros and contras, actually the most likely decision will have to be to “make/build” the resources, since it ensures the quality of the resources by having the In-House Certification which will be directly related to each product port folio. At the other side “make/build” has the consequence of providing the competent resources that can coup high technical complexity within 2 (two) months.
In conclusion to the situation of how to get competent resources is:
- To “make/build” the resources to be able to directly control the quality of their competency, since the probability of buying is becoming very low due to the fact that some product port folios are new in the market and most of them have a medium to high technical complexity.
- To establish a crash program that:
Can cover competence built up for high technical complexity related to a certain product port folio within 2 (two) months.
Can have enough candidates to be selected, in order to fulfill the total resource requirements of 35+51 Engineers.
Can find suitable trainers for each product port folios
Can monitor the selected candidate’s performance
Can minimize the cost for obtaining those resources
- Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick (1942), Engineering Economy 15th Edition, Singapore: Prentice Hall, Inc.
- Michael Bassard & Diane Riter (2010), The Memory Jogger 2nd Edition, Canada, GOAL/QPC
- John K. Hollmann, PE CCE (2006), Total Cost Management Framework, A Process for Applying the Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering 1st Edition, USA, AACE International – The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering