Views: 79
Summary – In the era of generative AI and no-code, the Buy vs Build decision goes beyond cost and timelines to include control, differentiation, and sustainability of each software component. Low-code platforms speed up development and lower financial barriers, but can introduce shadow IT, hidden costs, and technical debt if governance, IT integration, and long-term evolution aren’t planned for.
Solution: segment standard versus differentiating features, architect with microservices and an API-first approach, and establish agile governance (IT-business committee, quality standards, CI/CD) to build a hybrid, modular, and secure ecosystem.
Since the advent of AI and no-code platforms, the traditional trade-off between buying or building software is no longer limited to cost or time considerations. Hybrid options and AI-assisted development tools now offer new ways to design highly customized digital services.
Yet this apparent ease does not eliminate the need for a finely tuned strategic analysis. It remains crucial to define the desired level of control, differentiation, and long-term viability for each software component. Faced with the proliferation of SaaS solutions and code-generation tools, organizations must rethink their approach to turn their IT ecosystem into an evolving, secure asset. In this article, we explore the build vs buy dilemma—its stakes, limitations, and opportunities—to guide IT and operational decision-makers.
New Criteria for the Build vs Buy Trade-Off
Traditional cost and time criteria are no longer sufficient to choose between buying and building. AI and no-code have rewritten the rules of the game, offering new options to address business needs.
Shifting Financial and Time-to-Market Considerations
Until recently, the build vs buy decision primarily hinged on financial projections and time-to-market imperatives. Multiyear development cost estimates guided whether to adopt an off-the-shelf solution or develop internally. Technical risk was deemed high, and rapid deployment was a decisive factor.
Today, no-code platforms and AI-assisted code generators have reduced application development costs and delivery times. Development cycles can be shortened by months, and SaaS licensing budgets can sometimes exceed in-house development expenses. This shift fundamentally changes the nature of the decision.
However, lowering financial and time barriers should not overshadow the need for a holistic perspective. It remains essential to anticipate governance, integration with the existing IT landscape, and the ability to evolve the solution over time without incurring excessive technical debt.
The Impact of AI and No-Code on Decision-Making
Generative AI accelerates code writing and software component creation, while no-code platforms empower business users to prototype workflows without involving IT. This synergy provides unprecedented agility for testing concepts and obtaining rapid feedback.
For IT teams, the challenge is now to oversee and structure these AI and no-code initiatives. It is necessary to establish quality, security, and interoperability standards to prevent “shadow IT” proliferation and ensure the coherence of the digital ecosystem.
Concrete Example: Accelerated Deployment with a Low-Code Solution
A mid-sized insurance company deployed a claims management tool on a low-code platform to comply with new regulations. Initial features were live in under six weeks, compared to the four months expected with a traditional approach.
This project demonstrated that AI-assisted and no-code development could cut time-to-market by nearly 60%, while still providing enough customization to address industry-specific requirements. Teams focused on business logic rather than technical configuration.
However, this example also highlights the importance of defining an evolution and maintenance roadmap from the outset, ensuring the tool remains aligned with the broader IT ecosystem and can accommodate new use cases without a full redevelopment.
Buying Software: Benefits, Trade-Offs, and Risks
Acquiring a packaged solution promises rapid deployment and outsourced maintenance. However, this approach may require functional compromises and create dependency on the vendor’s roadmap.
Fast Time-to-Market and Built-In Best Practices
SaaS solutions are designed for deployment in days or weeks, with standardized business processes and preconfigured settings. They embed industry best practices, providing a robust, proven functional foundation.
Maintenance, security updates, and technical support are typically included, reducing the operational burden on the IT department. Internal teams can then focus on user adoption and workflow optimization rather than infrastructure management.
Nevertheless, this approach still requires an analysis of existing processes. It is important to confirm that the standard workflows cover core needs and to plan any necessary adaptations or add-ons before the solution goes live.
Vendor Dependency and Hidden Costs
Once the tool is in production, its functional evolution depends entirely on the vendor’s priorities. Specific requirements or innovative requests may remain in the backlog if they do not align with the vendor’s public roadmap.
Moreover, recurring license fees, add-on modules, and professional services (integration, training, advanced support) can quickly inflate the total cost of ownership. Some expenses are often underestimated during initial budgeting.
Finally, system interfaces, data migration, and extensive customizations can incur significant additional costs, even when the offering appears “all-inclusive.”
Concrete Example: License Proliferation in a Public Organization
A public agency adopted multiple SaaS tools sequentially to manage HR, finance, and compliance processes. Each new tool was deployed swiftly, but annual licensing costs doubled over three years without a clear consolidation plan.
This situation revealed only partial functional alignment, leading to ad-hoc interface development and an array of support contracts. External maintenance fees eventually consumed a growing portion of the IT budget.
The example underscores the need for centralized software procurement governance to avoid license fragmentation and plan a coherent architecture rather than accumulating disparate solutions without an overarching strategy.
Edana: strategic digital partner in Switzerland
We support companies and organizations in their digital transformation
Custom Development: Alignment, Control, and Challenges
In-house development enables full alignment with business processes and control over future changes. But it requires robust governance and a long-term vision to avoid common pitfalls.
Advantages of Full Alignment with Business Processes
Custom software perfectly mirrors internal process maps, with no workarounds or unnecessary layers. It supports precise workflow modeling and targeted automation of critical tasks.
Data ownership remains complete, from collection to reporting, without reliance on proprietary formats. This sovereignty is especially vital for regulated sectors or those with stringent compliance requirements.
Finally, deep customization creates a sustainable competitive edge, protecting the organization from imitation and off-the-shelf solutions. It is a strategic lever for differentiating high-value services.
Requirements for Durability and Maintainability
Building enterprise software demands modular architecture, automated testing, and thorough documentation from the design phase. Without these foundations, maintenance quickly becomes a bottleneck.
Governance must allocate a dedicated budget and resources for continuous evolution, including for use cases not envisioned initially. A cross-functional steering committee can ensure alignment among IT leadership, business units, and external partners.
It is also crucial to prioritize open-source, modular technologies to minimize vendor lock-in and preserve the freedom to evolve or migrate the software without prohibitive costs.
Concrete Example: Success of a Custom Tool in the Watchmaking Industry
A Swiss SME in the watchmaking sector developed a production-tracking application integrated with its existing ERP. The tool was designed from the outset to accommodate production line changes and international regulatory requirements.
Thanks to an extensible architecture and automated testing, each new version was deployed without service interruption or a spike in bugs. The software has become a strategic asset, continuously refined through a long-term partnership.
This case shows that a well-governed custom project can deliver lasting operational advantages and avoid productivity-hampering disruptions.
Crafting a Hybrid Strategy for a Resilient Ecosystem
Neither full buying nor full building is a one-size-fits-all solution. A hybrid approach delivers the best of both worlds, anchored in modular architecture and adaptive governance.
Identifying Components to Buy vs Build
Start by mapping core functionalities common across industries versus differentiating features unique to your business. Standard modules often address transversal needs (CRM, accounting, HR) efficiently.
Designing a Modular, Scalable Architecture
A microservices or API-first approach facilitates integration of third-party components, whether open source, commercial, or custom. Each service can evolve independently according to business priorities.
Modularity reduces the scope of changes and testing, limiting system-wide impacts. It also simplifies upgrades and technology migrations without full rebuilds.
Moreover, using containers and CI/CD pipelines ensures environment reproducibility and deployment speed, while maintaining version and configuration traceability.
Implementing Agile Software Governance
Governance should rest on a steering committee comprising IT leadership, business stakeholders, and architects. Regular reviews ensure evolution consistency and adherence to security and performance standards.
It is advisable to establish a best-practices repository, including buy vs build decision criteria, API levels, and code quality standards. This reference guides all projects.
Finally, ongoing technology watch allows rapid identification of opportunities to update or replace components, preventing technical debt accumulation and vendor lock-in.
Choose Your Strategic Mix to Transform Your IT Ecosystem
The buy vs build decision extends beyond budgetary or technical trade-offs. It shapes control levels, innovation capacity, and the durability of your digital architecture. Packaged solutions accelerate deployment, while custom development delivers strong differentiation—provided governance is solid. A hybrid approach combines standard modules with tailored development to build a modular, secure ecosystem.
Whatever path you choose, rigorous analysis of needs, risks, and long-term impact is essential. Our experts are available to help you identify which components to buy, build, or adapt, and to structure your software strategy so it remains an asset, not a liability.
