Being able to flex up additional resource when you need it is a great tool to have in your locker. Using flex, it’s possible to manage resource spikes, perhaps caused by sickness, holidays or excess demand that wasn’t budgeted. The obvious advantages certainly outweigh the marginally more expensive per job price that on-demand will cost the business.

What if you could do the same but in reverse?

What if your job volume dropped below forecast, wouldn’t it be great if you could shrink the size of your resource pool and associated costs accordingly?

We actually do this for a number of our customers already. We make up a percentage of their day-to day headcount via embedded resource and the headcount can be flexed up and also flexed down, dependent on the customer’s current work volume.

The amount of flexible resource that each business utilises changes from company to company but the 80/20 split tends to work best i.e. 80% of their technical resource is internal while 20% will comprise of flexible resource.

Therefore, if work dries up unexpectedly, they can save up to 20% on their technical resource cost by reducing or even eliminating the flexible element of their team until such a time as it's required again.

This method is particularly effective in industries that have a lot of seasonal variability or those that are difficult to forecast consistently, where the traditional resource model of permanent employees and fixed costs isn't always the most effective.

Comment