The Make or Buy Decision Manufacturing Gets Late.

A make or buy decision manufacturing teams face rarely arrives looking like a decision. It arrives as a comparison. Our unit cost against their quoted unit cost, plus freight, plus something for coordination.

The comparison is not wrong. It is just answering a smaller question than the one being settled.

What is actually being settled is which capability the business intends to own for good. That question appears nowhere on a cost sheet.

The timing is the fault

In most organisations the sequence runs like this. Design the product. Freeze the specification. Then go and source it.

By the time sourcing starts, the specification has already removed most of the options. Tolerances, materials, assembly method, test requirements. All chosen without reference to who would build the thing. The field of capable suppliers narrowed while nobody was looking at it.

The team then negotiates hard among three suppliers and believes it is optimising. The decision that mattered was made two months earlier by a design engineer who had no sourcing brief.

This is the failure my engineering specialisation exists to remove. Design a product before you design the process that builds it and you guarantee rework. In sourcing, that rework shows up in one of two forms. A compromised supplier, or a reopened specification.

Four inputs that should settle it

Intellectual property. What does the manufacturer necessarily learn by building this? If the process is the product, outsourcing it hands over the business. If the advantage sits in design, brand or channel, owning a factory is expensive sentiment.

Volume volatility. Fixed capacity punishes swings and rewards predictability. If demand moves by a factor of three across a year, a contract manufacturer absorbs that at a price. Your own plant absorbs it as idle capital.

Quality accountability. Where does the obligation land when a batch fails in the field? Outsourcing production does not outsource the consumer obligation or the reputational hit. If you will carry the failure, you need real control of the process that causes it.

Reversibility. This is the one that sets the urgency. Building a plant is hard to reverse. Appointing a contract manufacturer looks easy to reverse. It is not, if they hold the tooling, the process knowledge and the qualification records.

Ask what it would cost to move. Ask before you sign. That answer is a negotiating position and it expires at signature.

What a good answer sounds like

A defensible position states intent, not just cost.

Something like this. We will own final assembly and test, because the assembly sequence is where our quality advantage gets created and where a field failure would start. We will outsource component fabrication, because it is commodity capability with three qualified sources.

You can argue with that sentence. That is what makes it a decision.

You cannot argue with a unit cost comparison. You can only recalculate it. Which is why it feels safer and settles less.

When the cost sheet is enough

If the component is genuinely commodity, volumes are stable, there is no intellectual property in it and several qualified suppliers exist, then the cost comparison is the right analysis. This framework is overthinking a purchase order.

It earns its cost when two of the four inputs are live. When the process carries knowledge. When volumes swing. When a field failure would be yours. When the decision would be expensive to undo.

Those are the conditions where a cost sheet gives you a confident answer to the wrong question.

Common questions

What is a make or buy decision in manufacturing? It is the choice between producing something internally or sourcing it externally, and it sets which capabilities the business owns long term, not just which unit cost it pays. Treating it as a cost comparison understates what is being decided.

When should manufacturing be outsourced? Outsourcing suits commodity processes with stable requirements, and volatile volumes that would leave your own capacity idle. It suits poorly any process that carries your advantage, or where you would hold the field-failure obligation without real control of the cause.

What is the biggest risk in outsourcing manufacturing? Losing reversibility. Once a manufacturer holds the tooling, the process knowledge and the qualification records, moving becomes expensive enough that the relationship stops being negotiable. Establish the cost of exit before you sign.

The sequencing check

Take your current programme. Establish one fact. Was the sourcing decision made before or after the specification was frozen?

If it came after, the specification made the decision. The negotiation you are about to run is smaller than you think.

The Concurrent Method sets out how product, process, route and economics get designed together, so this decision is made while it is still open.

---

Dainu Devis is a business strategist, serial entrepreneur and founder of Sharktech Global. His method started as an engineering specialisation in concurrent product and process design. For the past decade he has used it as an operator and adviser across manufacturing, retail, construction and critical infrastructure, working with boards, technology companies, startups and industrial operators. Go-to-market delivery runs through Divine Lab Worx, the go-to-market consultancy arm of Sharktech Global, at divinelabworx.com.