01 / 03
Two calculations for the same problem
The HR calculation says: one open position, salary saved, cost of the search. The capacity calculation says: one shift a week not run, contribution margin lost, delivery dates pushed, overtime across the rest of the team.
In almost every case the second comes out an order of magnitude higher. It is also the only one that makes investment in training and placement comparable with investment in technology.
02 / 03
Staffing demand belongs in the capacity plan
Search only when someone resigns and you are structurally too late: from releasing a position to someone starting work, skilled industrial and technical roles regularly take months — for maintenance and automation, rather more. We will not put a figure on it until we have measured it ourselves or can cite a named source.
What works is deriving staffing demand from the same capacity plan that sizes machines and floor space — with scenarios, and with a lead time that matches how long filling a role really takes.
03 / 03
Keeping is cheaper than finding
The most effective levers are not in the search. Structured onboarding over the first 90 days, a visible skills matrix with a development path, and leadership work at supervisor level all act on length of stay — precisely where the decision to leave is actually made. Comparative figures of our own we will publish once we can evidence them.
It is also why we do not offer placement in isolation. A position filled that is open again eight months later has not solved the problem but postponed it.