In-house Hiring

In-house recruitment is often seen as the best long-term strategy for talent acquisition. It offers autonomy, control, and a deep understanding of company culture and values. But building an in-house team comes with its own set of challenges.

Longer hiring cycles are a barrier. Getting approval to increase internal headcount can also be a barrier, often eliminating in-house hiring as an option for near-term needs. Some life science companies report up to a two-year approval window for hiring in-house.

Additional hurdles for internal hiring include higher costs, a significant lag time before new talent becomes productive, a general shortage of qualified talent, and high competition for domestic talent.  

Staffing Agencies

Staffing agencies offer immediate relief. Indeed, they can provide skilled talent available on short notice. This approach may seem less costly at first.  After all, the talent you need right now may be available within days, and the costs are limited to the length of the contract. Or are they?

The hidden costs and long-term downsides of staffing agencies aren't immediately obvious. The use of contractors can erode team dynamics, leading to a suboptimal experience for the contractor and eventual turnover. 

Staffing agency hires fail more often than not–not because of the contractors but because of the lack of support and team dynamics.  Due to time and location constraints, contractors are frequently not fully integrated into a team. Usually, other team members don’t even know the contractors' names.  Furthermore, contractors get limited training and attention. Typically, they're not given meaningful work.  After you rush to get them hired and onboarded, you often end up right back where you started. The cost of turnover is more than just the cost of replacement. 

Despite the downsides, staffing agencies may be a part of your ultimate strategy. If so, they should be used for less critical roles. A good long-term strategy eliminates urgent hiring of your critical staff.

Outsourcing

Outsourcing can help handle bulk development workloads while core capabilities remain in-house, enabling the business to move quickly.  However, outsourcing is terrible for attrition. Outsourcing comes with the stigma of being treated differently than directly employed talent.

Plus, outsourcing for life science companies raises security concerns, including the risk of intellectual property theft, data breaches exposing sensitive patient information, and ensuring compliance with global regulatory standards. Potential supply chain disruptions and difficulties in maintaining quality control over the outsourced processes also exist.

The reality is that much of the talent you need must come from within the organization or be highly integrated within it.

Offshore Talent

Offshore talent is a solution that casts the widest net, tapping into a global market. It can bring diverse expertise and typically the lowest cost.

However, the geographical divide often comes with challenges – communication hurdles, time zone differences, cultural differences, and the distant echo of outsiders that might not foster the sense of belonging and long-term commitment critical in the medical device industry.  Plus, the downsides of outsourcing mentioned above still apply.  Security concerns include intellectual property theft risk, data breaches, ensuring compliance, and potential supply chain disruptions.

While the proposed pricing for talent looks like a short-term bargain on paper, the hidden long-term costs, like the cost of a delay to market or reduced revenue from loss of first-to-market advantage, are the costs to optimize.  

Nearshore Talent

Hiring nearshore talent offers an enticing compromise: reduced or eliminated time zone differences and better cultural alignment, with impressive cost benefits. It's a progressive step towards a more balanced workforce.  However, nearshoring also has the downsides of outsourcing.