Short term temporary cover for experienced staff absence - a dilemna

[HangTime]

Just wanted to sound people out on a workplace scenario, not really about careers but probably fewer joke responses in here than GD

Background:
Traditionally I have had two long-term contract resources of my discipline working under me on a programme of work spanning multiple projects. One of them left and it was decided by senior management not to replace them for budgetary reasons. Things are just about manageable with two people in our discipline although not ideal.

Scenario:
However, the other resource has gone on a contract break for 6 weeks, leaving me on my own to do the work of what used to be 3 experienced people. We attempted to secure a temporary replacement resource via consultancies we have relationships with, but it wasn't possible to get people with the right experience / calibre by the time he left. It's a job that requires both direct industry experience (so that we are comfortable putting them in front of our stakeholders) and exposure to a particular field of IT. Typically the best in this field would be either on or looking for longer contracts.

Thought process:
My current thinking is that bringing in a temporary resource now will not represent good value because it will likely take a bit of time to get them up to speed and that in itself will consume even more of my time (originally the plan was that the handover could be handled largely by the person going on leave). There's a fair amount of background that the incumbent would need to get up to speed with, understanding how we operate, our infrastructure etc so not the sort of thing I could just cover off in half a day. I've had past experience (albeit many years ago in a different line of work) trying to train someone to do a job requiring a lot of tacit knowledge and it was one of those situations where at times I felt it would be easier just to do it all myself. However, it does mean that I'm overloaded trying to juggle multiple projects at the same time meaning that I can't give each task the attention it deserves. I can get some help from other members of the team, but not to the extent of just completely delegating whole workstreams as I would normally.

If I was able to get a resource in for longer term then I would just get on and do it because it would be a bridge that needs to be crossed sooner or later. But because we can only get them in as short term cover I am worried about the short term pain. To be clear, I can choose who to bring in but I don't control the purse strings so can't simply get someone in for 3+ months.

Your views:
Just wondering if others have faced this type of scenario where you have the option of 'muddling through' or bringing in a new temp resource and then having an initial hump to get over where you are actually less efficient because you have to do a lot of hand-holding in the early days?

 

[HangTime]

The skillsets themselves are transferable but we have a proprietary system built over a number of years that needs to be understood to some extent to be able to apply those skillsets, so no matter how talented an incoming recruit is, there will be a learning curve to get familiar with that (not withstanding all the generic stuff like company culture, toolsets, processes and procedures etc). When I joined it took me at around 4-6 weeks to start feeling like I was adding significant value - now even if I hired someone better than me I would expect them to have an initial transition period of at least a couple of weeks.

As for the headcount strategy I think it is twofold; 1) Our ratio of contractorsermies is very high and they want to change it, part of this will be natural wastage of contractors, and 2) Just general budgetary constraints to reduce our expense ratio.

 

[HangTime]

as a complete shot in the dark, but is there any chance that there is someone in another department that may have some knowledge of the systems that could be transferred over as cover/ a replacement?

Sadly not in terms of full time cover - there are people who worked on the programme in the past but they are allocated to other projects. Current strategy is to share some of the work with other members of the team, as even though it isn't their primary function they have enough knowledge and skills to make it work. Although only 2 of us are nominally my discipline, the overall team size is about 15 and some of them can pitch in a bit. But, not the same as having someone fulltime who can 'own' a workstream.

what guarantee do you have that the contractor will come back after the break ? It could be a lot more if you end up needing to recruit.

No guarantee but I'd be surprised if they didn't. To be honest, the chance of them not coming back is not really any higher anyone leaving.

The "excess" capacity (since management think you don't need 3) can then be used to generate training and reference materials to bring others up to speed a bit quicker. You are going to need this for times when either you or the contractor are on holiday and so be able to skill someone up (whether internal or external) fairly quickly.

I don't disagree with that and in theory KT is backed by management... but whether that stacks up against official programme 'demand' (which requires budgeted projects) is another matter. We've talked about getting in a more junior permanent resource who can be trained up, but I haven't seen anything come of that yet.

 

[HangTime]

The proprietary system is (largely) built using common tools to industry standards or at least logically, and as such it is easier to learn than equivalent systems in some other organisations. The nature of this type of system is that almost every organisation who does this will have their own proprietary or at least customised solution even if built using the same standards.

Theoretically we could do a bit more in terms of more / better / more accessible documentation, but it is a bit of a catch-22 in that there is never time/budget to progress it