The conversation began with machinery. A furniture manufacturer had a substantial one-off project and was looking to expand production. The equipment under consideration represented a six-figure investment in euros, and we had identified suitable options.
Then staffing became a concern. More machinery would create capacity on paper, but the client was less certain about the people available to run it. We found ourselves discussing a production problem that equipment alone might not resolve.
We asked to see the furniture specifications. The pieces were sufficiently standard for us to explore manufacturing them in China, shipping them flat-packed and leaving assembly with the client. Instead of adding machines to the original plan, we put together another route to the same finished furniture.
The comparison showed a substantial reduction in the projected cost, including delivery. It also changed the capital commitment. The client could assess the project without making the machinery investment a prerequisite.
There was still a case for buying equipment: it could serve future orders as well. But that future capacity came with a fixed commitment at a time when staffing and economic conditions were uncertain. Having both options made the decision more useful.