Service 03 — 4 Weeks — ¥34,000
Understand what the outsourcing proposal actually means over five years — not just the first
A four-week examination of whether a function belongs inside your organisation or with an external provider — covering direct cost, management overhead, quality control, dependency risk, and what reversing the decision would actually involve.
What this engagement delivers
A comparison over five years, a note on exit terms, and a recommendation that may be to keep the function in-house
Most outsourcing proposals arrive with a year-one cost comparison. This engagement produces a five-year horizon instead — one that accounts for how the provider's pricing typically changes after the initial contract period, the ongoing management overhead that does not disappear when a function is outsourced, and the cost and difficulty of reversing the decision if it proves to be wrong.
The recommendation may be to proceed with the outsourcing. It may be to retain the function. In some cases it will be to proceed only if specific exit terms can be agreed first. Whatever the conclusion, the reasoning will be in the document, not reserved for the debrief conversation.
Duration
Four weeks
Appropriate when a proposal is already on the table
Investment
¥34,000
Fixed fee, agreed before work begins
Suited to
A specific proposal
Already in discussion with an external provider
The situation most clients arrive with
A proposal that looks favourable on paper, with several dimensions not yet examined
Outsourcing proposals tend to be presented by the provider and evaluated internally against a year-one cost comparison. At that point, the figures typically favour outsourcing — that is the point at which they are shared.
What the year-one figure does not show: the management time that continues to be spent overseeing the external relationship, the quality control mechanisms that need to be maintained, the way provider pricing tends to move once the initial contract period ends, and what it takes to bring a function back in-house if the arrangement does not hold.
The dependency risk is also material. For some functions, placing them with an external provider creates a concentration of knowledge and capability outside the organisation that becomes progressively harder to recover. Whether that risk is acceptable is a question worth examining before the contract is signed rather than after.
The cost comparison covers year one — the period when provider pricing is most favourable and transition costs are not yet visible
Management overhead after outsourcing is treated as negligible — it is usually not, especially in the first twelve to eighteen months
Quality control requirements after the transition are not costed — someone inside the organisation still needs to check what the provider delivers
The exit terms have not been negotiated yet — which means the cost and difficulty of reversing the decision is unknown at the point of signing
How this engagement works
Five dimensions examined in sequence, producing a comparison your board can follow
The analysis works through each dimension of the decision in order. The five-year cost comparison is the anchor, but the other dimensions — management overhead, quality control, dependency risk, and reversibility — change the picture materially and are not optional parts of the work.
Dimension 01
Direct cost over five years
A cost comparison that runs through the full contract horizon, not year one. This includes how provider pricing typically moves after the initial period, and the internal transition cost in the year the change is made.
Dimension 02
Management overhead
The ongoing internal time required to manage the external relationship — contract oversight, performance monitoring, issue resolution, and the person inside the organisation who remains accountable for what the provider delivers.
Dimension 03
Quality control requirements
What checking the provider's output requires of your team, at what frequency, and whether the current internal capability to perform that check will remain available over the contract period.
Dimension 04
Dependency risk
Whether placing this function externally creates a concentration of knowledge or capability that becomes progressively harder to recover, and what that means for your negotiating position as the contract approaches renewal.
Dimension 05
Reversibility
What it would take to bring the function back in-house if the arrangement does not work as expected — the cost, the time, the staffing implications, and whether the exit terms in the current proposal make that feasible.
How the four weeks are structured
What happens in each week — and what it asks of your team
| Week | Our activity | Your involvement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Review the proposal and existing documentation on the function; initial interviews with those who manage it currently | Share the provider proposal, current staffing and cost data for the function, and any prior internal assessments |
| 2 | Five-year cost model construction; management overhead and quality control assessment | One session to confirm internal cost assumptions and clarify how the function currently operates |
| 3 | Dependency risk and reversibility analysis; exit terms review; draft report preparation | Confirm any constraints on the exit terms that can be proposed to the provider |
| 4 | Draft shared for factual review; final report delivered with recommendation and accompanying note | Review draft for accuracy; note any circumstances the analysis does not reflect |
Total time expected from your team across the engagement: approximately four to six hours, spread across two to three people.
Investment
¥34,000 — fixed, agreed before the work begins
The fee covers the full four-week engagement and all deliverables. It does not vary based on the recommendation — the analysis is the same whether the conclusion is to outsource or to retain the function. If the scope of the function under review is significantly larger than the initial conversation suggested, we will discuss what that means before proceeding.
What is included
Five-year cost comparison covering direct costs, management overhead, and transition costs in the year of change
Management overhead assessment — what the external relationship requires of your team on an ongoing basis
Quality control requirements — what checking the provider's output involves and whether your organisation can sustain it
Dependency risk assessment — what placing this function externally means for your position over the full contract period
A note on the exit terms that would need to be agreed before the arrangement is entered into
A written recommendation — which may be to outsource, to retain the function, or to proceed only if specific conditions are met first
Payment terms are discussed at the start of the engagement. A portion is typically invoiced at the start and the remainder on delivery of the final document.
What the output looks like in practice
A document that can be put in front of a board or finance committee without additional preparation
The five-year comparison
The cost model is presented as a side-by-side comparison — internal versus external — across each year of the horizon. The assumptions behind each figure are stated explicitly, so a reader can identify where the analysis depends on estimates and where it is based on documented figures.
Where the provider's pricing structure creates uncertainty beyond the initial contract term, the model shows a range rather than a single figure. That is more useful than a single number that implies a precision the data does not support.
The recommendation and accompanying note
The recommendation appears in the document, not only in a conversation. Where the analysis is genuinely close — where both options have significant considerations in their favour — the report will say so rather than manufacture a cleaner conclusion.
The note on exit terms is included regardless of which way the recommendation falls. If the conclusion is to outsource, the terms that would need to be in place before proceeding are specified. If the conclusion is to retain the function, the conditions under which outsourcing might be appropriate in future are noted.
Our commitment
The recommendation will be independent of whether outsourcing is the easier answer
The engagement does not have a preferred outcome. If the analysis shows that retaining the function is the more considered position, the report will say so — including where that is an inconvenient conclusion given the current state of discussions with the provider.
The report will also note where the analysis rests on assumptions that could reasonably change — provider pricing behaviour, internal staffing costs, the organisation's capacity to manage the relationship — rather than presenting a single number as though the future were fixed.
This engagement is appropriate when a specific proposal is already on the table — not when outsourcing is being considered in general terms. An initial conversation before the work begins confirms that this is the right scope for the question. If the situation calls for something different, we will say so at that stage.
How to begin
Describe the function and the proposal in a few sentences
A brief note on the function under consideration, where the proposal is currently, and the decision timeline you are working within is enough to start. We will respond within two working days to confirm whether this scope suits the situation.
Step 1
Send a short note
Describe the function, the provider proposal, and where the decision stands
Step 2
Initial conversation
We confirm the scope, the documents needed, and the start date
Step 3
Work begins
Proposal and function review in week one; cost model and risk analysis in weeks two to three; final document in week four
Outsourcing Decision Review
If an outsourcing proposal is on the table and the decision has not been made
A short note describing the function and where discussions stand is enough to start. The initial conversation is without charge and carries no commitment.
Send a noteOther services
Other structured engagements
6 weeks — ¥44,000
Regional Expansion Planning
An assessment covering local demand, establishment costs, staffing availability, and management burden for companies considering a second location.
Learn more →4 weeks — ¥32,000
Performance Measurement Setup
Replacing figures reported because they are available with a smaller set that reflects how the organisation actually performs.
Learn more →3 weeks — ¥28,000
Board Reporting Preparation
Support preparing material for a board, investor group, or lender — covering structure, presentation, and preparation for follow-up questions.
Learn more →