Second-Generation MSP: Fixing Niche Talent Gaps

What Procurement Leaders Should Fix When Their First MSP Programme Misses Niche STEM Talent

Most first MSP programmes hit their early targets. Spend becomes visible, invoices consolidate and rates come under control. On paper, the programme is doing exactly what it promised.

Inside the business, however, a different picture can form. A process engineer for a cell therapy line stays open for months. In Europe, a search for a qualified person (QP) goes to a supplier with no network in the field. In the US, the hunt for a senior quality lead meets the same wall. Hiring managers start to work around the programme, and the savings report no longer tells the full story.

The first-generation MSP trade-off

Volume and specialism call for different designs. Many first programmes are set up to run high volumes of common roles at a low cost per hire. Their supplier panels, rate cards and KPIs all reflect that design. However, the roles that decide whether a regulated STEM business hits its goals rarely sit in that volume.

The pressure on those roles is rising in every major market. In the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects jobs for medical scientists to grow 9% between 2024 and 2034. That is much faster than average, with about 9,600 openings a year. In the UK, the Life Sciences 2035 skills report expects the sector to need 145,000 new and replacement workers by 2035.

Europe tells a similar story. The European Labour Authority recorded 2,617 occupational shortages across EURES countries in 2025, with nearly every occupation short in at least one country. Yet the same report found that many shortages in one country sit alongside surpluses in another. For procurement, that is the key point. The talent often exists, but a programme built for local volume rarely reaches it across borders, languages and employment rules.

Signs your MSP has reached its ceiling

The warning signs tend to appear together. Savings flatten year on year, because the easy gains have already been made. Fill rates for critical roles drift well below the programme average. Suppliers decline specialist requisitions or send thin shortlists.

Meanwhile, hiring managers find their own way around the problem. They call a boutique agency directly, and off-contract spend creeps back in. In turn, the visibility the programme was meant to create starts to erode.

Another sign is a contract that keeps being extended without a market test. Extensions feel low risk. Yet they lock in a model built for a different stage of the programme.

None of this means the first programme failed. More often, it did its first job well. A first-generation MSP brings order to contingent spend. A second-generation MSP has to bring access to the talent the business cannot find on its own.

What a second-generation MSP should fix

First, split the scorecard. Track fill rate and time-to-fill for critical, hard-to-fill roles apart from volume roles. An average across both hides exactly where the business is losing time.

Second, rebuild the supplier panel in tiers. Keep core suppliers for volume work, then add approved specialists for scarce disciplines. The MSP should govern both tiers in the same way, so specialist access does not reopen the door to off-contract spend.

Third, price by scarcity. A single rate card for every role prices niche skills out of the market. Banded rates, backed by live market data, let procurement control cost without losing the best candidates.

Fourth, ask for sector insight, not just reporting. A global business needs a provider that can source across borders and handle each country’s rules. A second-generation provider should map where niche talent sits and forecast demand peaks across every region where you hire. That shift turns the programme from reactive to planned.

Finally, test specialism, not just scale, when you score bids. Give the most weight to proven delivery in your own fields, with references for similar roles. A strong record in volume hiring says little about whether a provider can find a radiochemist.

None of these changes is radical on its own. Together, though, they rebuild the programme around the roles that matter most to the business.

Making the switch without losing ground

Changing provider carries real risk and needs a careful plan. Contractors on live projects, supplier relationships and programme data all need a clean handover. So procurement leaders should write data ownership and exit terms into the new contract from day one.

A phased transition also helps. Moving specialist roles first can show early results, while volume roles stay stable until the new model proves itself. In addition, keeping strong incumbent suppliers on the new panel protects continuity for contractors already on site.

Volume roles still matter, and a good second-generation programme keeps those gains. The real test is whether a provider can run that volume efficiently and still reach the niche talent your business depends on. For regulated STEM employers, that combination is what turns an MSP from a cost tool into a growth tool.

Skills Alliance Enterprise runs MSP programmes built for life sciences and STEM, combining contingent workforce management with deep sector specialism. If your first programme is struggling to fill niche roles, talk to our team about your second-generation MSP, or explore our extended workforce solutions.

By Dave Watson, VP Talent Solutions, Skills Alliance Enterprise