Inhouse vs. Partner

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.skillconomy.com/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Once you realize that you can’t do without the passive candidate market, you face the strategic question of whether to handle sourcing with your own internal team or to look for a strategic partner. There are good arguments for both options. In the past, especially large companies have gained their own experience in building active sourcing teams. While some impressive teams with proven expertise have emerged, in practice, specific challenges have arisen in managing inhouse sourcing.

​

Challenges of Internal Active Sourcing

In medium-sized and large companies in the DACH region, two different approaches dominate: Either the task of active sourcing is just one part of a broad range of responsibilities for HR managers or recruiters, to be done on the side as needed. In most cases, this leads to active sourcing being done hardly at all, if ever. On average, recruiters manage up to 26 positions at the same time—leaving no time for labor-intensive sourcing. The second approach is to build a dedicated active sourcing team. While this often delivers very good results in terms of content, there are key management challenges:

​

Scalability

In very few companies is the recruiting demand spread evenly throughout the year. On top of that, planning is limited, meaning that short-term additional needs arise or planned hires, for example for cost reduction, are postponed. This normal dynamic is met by an inhouse team that can offer little flexibility and scalability.

​

Team Management

A functioning sourcing team needs—like any team—resources for team management and development. In addition, there is the specific risk that pure sourcing activities lead to dissatisfaction for many employees over time, resulting in above-average turnover in sourcing teams.

​

Access & Costs

Without access to sourcing channels, you lack access to suitable candidates. The necessary licenses can cause significant ongoing costs and, due to one- or two-year terms, offer no flexibility. At the same time, know-how is needed to use the platforms correctly. Without these investments, success fails to materialize—or becomes disproportionately expensive. That’s why at skillconomy we cover all license costs for you.

​

Inhouse vs. skillconomy

​

Inhouse plus skillconomy

In addition to the fundamental make-or-buy decision, you might alternatively be considering whether to expand an existing team. Some of our clients have answered this question with a model in which a certain amount of their own sourcing capacity is maintained inhouse and combined with the advantages of our sourcing AI.