Three needs, three different answers
The question "consultant or hire?" is poorly framed: it mixes three distinct needs. A permanently vacant role calls for a hire. A one-time specialist project (criticality analysis, reliability program setup, major shutdown preparation) calls for a consulting engagement. A temporary overload calls for reinforcement. The wrong choice is expensive both ways: hiring for a six-month project leaves a role without purpose; consulting indefinitely for a permanent need costs more than a salary.
| Criterion | Permanent hire | Consulting engagement | Temporary reinforcement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical need | Permanent role, ongoing workload | Defined project, rare expertise | Overload or absence |
| Time to contribution | Months (recruiting + ramp-up) | Days to weeks | Days |
| Long-term cost | Lowest if the need lasts | High if extended indefinitely | Intermediate |
| Knowledge transfer | Natural, but slow | Must be contractual | Low |
The trap: the permanent consultant
The classic risk of a consulting engagement is dependency: the consultant delivers, but nothing remains when they leave. A good engagement includes transfer deliverables from the start — documentation, employee training, coaching rather than execution — and an explicit exit criterion. The question to ask before signing: "what will we know how to do on our own in six months?"
Internal ownership
Whatever the option, a plant's reliability belongs to its employees. A consultant can accelerate, structure and train — but decision-making, follow-up and continuous improvement must have a named internal owner. Successful engagements are those where the client becomes progressively self-sufficient; failed ones are those where expertise remains rented.