Message Board Thread - "Consultant or In-house"

Back to Threads | Back to Forums

TitleByPosted On
Consultant or In-house Dusty 6/2/2005
Has there been a recent cost-benefit study regarding hiring a consultant vs in-house to perform IRT surveys? It seems like I read, or heard, that unless a camera is in use 60 days per year an organization should consider hiring the work out to a consultant. Is this the case considering the entry level cost of buying a camera has dropped and will probably continue to drop?
Re:Consultant or In-house Doctir bob 6/13/2005
I wrote a paper on this some 25 years ago, so I am not sure its still relevant. It detailed the cost tradeoffs for consultant vs. in-house. Today, I believe either in-house and/or consulting will be quite beneficial provided the thermographer is competent and uses good quality equipment and reporting software.

To me, an important tradeoff is thermographer availability. You need to consider the tradeoffs of having or not having a readily available thermographer. Routine IR surveys are but one aspect of IR thermography. The frequency of the unscheduled IR work can be a driver for having your own IR camera and thermographer.

Many start with a consultant, then buy their own camera and do both. Some then wean themselves from the consultant and do their own.

If you are currently doing nothing in IR, then any of the possible combinations should prove fruitful, depending on the size of your operation.

Re:Consultant or In-house jvoitl 6/13/2005
I definitely agree with Doktir bob on the advantages of an in house thermographer. I have been doing thermography at Coors for almost 6 years. During that time I have probably had an average of one request a week to check something other than scheduled PMs. Some of these calls have resulted in tremendous cost savings with problems in brewing, kilning, refrigeration and a host of other areas.

  • Back to Threads
  • Back to Forums


  •   Copyright © FLIR Systems, Inc 2012