Organisations are spending significant amounts of money on technical labour — just not in ways that make financial or professional sense. In many cases, it isn't working for them, for the workforce, or for the long-term health of the art technical sector. Let me tell you the whys…… 

Through ArtTechSpace, a number of institutions approached me, seeking an alternative to using external supplier companies for their staffing needs. They wanted people they could trust, consistency across projects, and technicians who understood the materials being worked with and the working environment. And they wanted it to cost less (classic) but with the money going directly to the people doing the work rather than disappearing into company overheads.

The demand was real. The logic was sound. But structural and financial barriers meant it never got off the ground.

And that tells us something important.

Because those same institutions — the ones who could see the value of a smarter, more direct approach — will often end up defaulting to whatever external supplier company they already have a relationship with. Not because it's the best solution. Because it's the easiest one to manage administratively.

Survey data we have from UK arts and cultural institutions backs this up. Organisations frequently struggle to find freelance technicians when they need them: because of scheduling conflicts, because word of mouth networks don't reach far enough, because frankly the day rates on offer don't attract the experienced people they need. And yet those same organisations will pay considerably more to external supplier companies for the same work.

And this is where it gets really problematic and frankly, damaging to the workforce.

A freelance technician quotes their professional rate. The organisation decides it's too expensive and declines. Then they call an external supplier company and pay significantly more for the same work, with much of that money going into overheads rather than to the technician actually doing the job.

The external companies aren't doing anything wrong here, they're going where the money is, and that's entirely rational. But the message it sends to the local freelance pool is deeply corrosive. It says: we won't pay you what you're worth, but we'll pay considerably more for someone else. That doesn't go unnoticed. It damages trust, it undermines professional rates, and it actively discourages the kind of consistent local freelance relationships that would serve organisations far better in the long run.

The money is often there. It's just not flowing in ways that support the workforce or build long-term capability.

And here's the part that really doesn't make financial sense. When an organisation relies entirely on external suppliers for technical labour, they build no internal capability. Every project starts from scratch; there's no accumulated knowledge, no consistency, no institutional memory. And if/when those suppliers let them down (wrong people, unavailable at short notice, unfamiliar with the objects and materials) there's no internal resource to fall back on.

Some organisations are turning down work entirely because they don't have the in-house technical capability to deliver it. That's not a recruitment problem. That's a development problem.

Because recruitment — even well-managed external recruitment — is not a workforce strategy. It's a short-term fix that compounds over time.

The organisations that will be most resilient in five to ten years are those investing now in developing internal capabilities; training their own permanent staff and freelancers (who are the majority of our industry’s labourers and need to be developed also). Building consistent teams. Creating progression pathways — such as tiered pay structures built around professional development — that retain experienced technicians, whether permanent, contract or freelance.

Since starting this series, a number of technicians have been in touch to say that the employers who invested in their development are the ones they have prioritised for years. As we've said previously, investing in staff means they will invest in your organisation/business.

That investment costs money upfront. But it costs considerably less than years of dependence on external suppliers, missed opportunities, and starting over every time a project comes in.

Because paying for experience you never built is the most expensive option of all.

Is your organisation investing in developing internal technical capability — or relying on external suppliers to fill the gap? And does that approach make financial sense in the long term?

#training #arttechnician #arthandling #museumtechnician #artlogistics #arttechspace