Compare the operating models
In this fictional example, each product P uses two panels and one bracket. Route A builds in the shop’s workshop. Route B sends owned components to assembler S and receives finished P back. Sending components to S is not a customer sale of those components in this fixture.
| Business requirement | In-house build | Subcontract build |
|---|---|---|
| Work owner | Own workshop task | Supplier work arrangement |
| Component route | Shelf → workshop | Shelf → assembler custody |
| Materials for three P | Six panels and three brackets issued to workshop | SC7: six panels and three brackets issued to S |
| Finished receipt | Internal build output | Receipt against subcontract work |
Work through the chosen model
Route B stores assembler, work specification, supplied component issue and expected finished item, with receipt linked to the work. Route A stores workshop inputs/output. Both use P’s specification but have distinct party and custody journeys; do not erase components at supplier handover.
- Choose supplied production route
- Issue components to workshop or assembler
- Receive and identify actual finished output
Outsourcing changes custody and supplier coordination, not merely a screen label. In-house work gives direct control but needs workshop capture.
For three P units, route B issues six panels and three brackets to S, still owned by the shop while in S’s custody. Receipt records three finished P against subcontract work SC7; no internal workshop completion is recorded.
When the other model fits
S supplies finished P from its own materials and the shop buys it ready-made. Still track supplied components?
Show the worked answer
No. Use the actual finished-goods purchase path, unless other supplied work obligations exist.