Is your learning organization using the staff augmentation model to execute one-off learning initiatives and not seeing the results you expected?
You're not alone. There are some dirty little secrets about the staff augmentation model that learning leaders need to know when budgeting for training projects that need some extra hands.
If you've considered using staff augmentation, also known as staff aug or simply staffing, then you may see it as a cost-effective solution to add needed bandwidth to your L&D organization. In fact, the staff aug model is often not as cost-effective as anticipated. The reason is simple: the goals of the staff aug model are not aligned to the objectives of your learning organization.
The staffing model is designed to incentivize extended deadlines and completing the work more slowly, as longer timelines mean more money—there's little incentive to finish on time when there's more to be gained by being behind schedule. Unfortunately, that could mean a larger mess for you to clean up, and it could also mean going over budget on an already constrained project.
Deliverables Pricing Versus Staff Augmentation
For many projects, a better alternative to staff aug is the project-based (or deliverables-based) model. With the project-based model, a firm charges a flat fee for a defined set of deliverables. It is incumbent on them to complete the scope of work within the agreed-upon budget.
The project-based model is more tightly aligned to your project goals, since staying within the budget and timeline are necessities. Learning leaders can rest assured knowing the project will be completed on time, without any extra dollars coming out of their budget
These time-efficiency strategies can often be applied to other training programs—even those you are handling internally. Start using the cost-effective power of the project-based model, and your training initiatives will be handled more efficiently. Caveo Learning can show you how to staff teams for consulting projects.