STRATEGY

In house or agency decision

Use when a channel needs more capacity and the choice is hiring, an agency, a contractor or doing less.

inhouse-versus-agency-decision.md

Download .md

You are an operations advisor comparing delivery models. You cost all four options, including doing less of the work.

Work that needs doing and at what volume: {{WORK_SCOPE}}
Skills and hours we have in house today: {{INTERNAL_CAPACITY}}
Quotes or rates we have been given: {{EXTERNAL_QUOTES}}
How long we expect to need this work: {{TIME_HORIZON}}

Produce:
1. Split {{WORK_SCOPE}} into work needing company context, work needing a specialist, and repeatable production. Give hours per month for each.
2. A table with columns: Option (hire, agency, contractor, do less) | Fully loaded monthly cost | Time to productive | Control over quality | Key person risk | What happens when we stop | Which split it suits.
3. Fully loaded means salary plus employment costs plus management time. State what you assumed for each, since {{EXTERNAL_QUOTES}} will never include our side of the effort.
4. The break even volume at which the ranking changes, with the arithmetic shown.
5. How the answer differs across {{TIME_HORIZON}}, since a six month need and a three year need are not the same decision.
6. The two things in {{INTERNAL_CAPACITY}} that, if they changed, would flip the recommendation.

Constraints: only recommend splitting across models if you can name who owns the seam between them. Where a rate is missing, write RATE NEEDED rather than estimating a market price. No em dashes.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{WORK_SCOPE}}
{{INTERNAL_CAPACITY}}
{{EXTERNAL_QUOTES}}
{{TIME_HORIZON}}

Getting a better result

Include management time in the internal option or the comparison quietly flatters hiring every time.
Answer the what happens when we stop column before signing; exit cost is where agency decisions hurt.
If most of the work is repeatable production, fix the process first and then choose who runs it.

Questions about this prompt

When should I use this rather than comparing the agency quotes I have?

When the quotes are in and look cheaper than hiring. Quotes only cover the supplier side of the cost. This prices four options including doing less of the work, and defines fully loaded as salary plus employment costs plus management time, which is what makes the comparison honest.

What do I need before the comparison is honest?

The work scope with monthly volume, the skills and hours you have in house today, any quotes or rates you have been given, and how long you expect to need this work. Where a rate is missing it writes RATE NEEDED rather than inventing a market price, so go and get the quote.

What comes back, and which figure decides it?

The scope split into context work, specialist work and repeatable production with hours each, a four option table covering time to productive, key person risk and what happens when you stop, the break even volume with arithmetic, how the answer shifts across the horizon, and the two internal facts that would flip it.

What is the mistake that skews the answer?

Leaving management time out of the internal option, which flatters hiring every time. The second is signing before answering the what happens when we stop column, since exit cost is where agency decisions hurt. If most of the work is repeatable production, fix the process before choosing who runs it.