Strategic value determines whether to build or buy software solutions
The “build or buy” question isn’t about preference or budget, it’s about strategic intent. You don’t invest in building technology unless it gives you a long-term edge. If it’s not part of your competitive engine, there’s no logic in reinventing what’s already done well by others. Off-the-shelf software exists for a reason. It’s fast, it’s reliable, and it can plug into your ecosystem almost immediately.
But when a core business function defines how you win, how you serve customers better than anyone else, that’s where building starts to make sense. Your tech should match the uniqueness of your business. If it’s generic software in a non-generic business, that’s a misalignment. Speed matters, but direction matters more.
Strategic leaders know that tech decisions at this level impact more than processes, they shape trajectory. Making the right call on build vs. buy means stepping back and asking, “Does this move us closer to being the best in what we do, or just make us faster at doing what everyone already does?”
For C-level decision-makers, this comes down to clarity of purpose. It’s not about being conservative or bold, it’s about being precise. Don’t overthink the tech. Think business first. Don’t default to building out of pride. Don’t default to buying out of convenience. What matters is the value the solution brings to your core mission.
If you genuinely have a unique way of doing business, a model, a process, an experience worth protecting, then custom software isn’t just an option. It’s a must. And that clarity makes execution easier.
Custom-built software can preserve and enhance competitive differentiation
At Assetlink, the CIO saw clearly that no off-the-shelf work order system fit the company’s model. Their operations weren’t cookie-cutter, and force-fitting them into a generic solution would’ve diluted the service experience. So they did the right thing. They built it.
That build wasn’t about vanity, it was strategy. The workflows were some of the company’s strongest value drivers. Preserving them meant defending their edge in a very competitive market. The end result didn’t just work. It became a core component of the business. It integrated tightly across systems and matched the real-life way the team operated.
More importantly, they owned it. Control over how the tool evolved was in-house. That meant faster iterations, smarter updates, and true alignment with business shifts, not waiting on vendor release schedules or compromise updates.
Executives considering this path should factor in sustainability. Building means carrying long-term responsibility. You need the right team, the right culture, and the discipline to support, update, and evolve your platform consistently, and the resilience to deal with the inevitable friction of scaling homemade tech.
So if the technology supports a real differentiator, something your competitors don’t and can’t easily copy, then go for it. But if you confuse ordinary needs for exceptional ones, you’re spending time and money on solutions that commoditize rather than differentiate.
Off-the-shelf solutions can accelerate deployment and free up internal resources
At Seymour Whyte, the decision to buy, rather than build, a cost capture system wasn’t about taking the easy route. It was about focusing on priorities that mattered. The requirement was critical to run their construction projects, but it wasn’t unique. That’s the key. There was no strategic advantage in doing it differently from the rest of the market.
By leveraging a commercial system with solid API support, the CIO enabled faster implementation, ensured compliance with financial regulations, and got access to proven industry best practices, all without draining development resources. The team didn’t waste time building standard functionality. They deployed quickly, stabilized faster, and focused their energy on integration and optimization, where they could add more organizational value.
When the capability you need is well-understood, standardized, and widely supported by established tools, it makes more sense to adopt what works and extend it intelligently, rather than starting from zero.
For executives, this is about resource discipline. Buying a tested solution can put your team in a much better position to focus on transformation, not duplication. What matters is how the solution integrates into your environment and supports your workflows, not whether you built every component from scratch.
Choose where you want to compete. Your best technical minds should work on business-defining problems, not rebuild commodity functionality. Speed to value has strategic weight, especially when you’re managing scale, complexity, and regulatory expectations.
A structured decision-making framework minimizes software project risk
Making calls on whether to build or buy software isn’t just tactical, it’s a strategic discipline. The CIO in this case identified a clear framework based on years of frontline experience: First, ask whether the functionality is tied to your core intellectual property. Second, be honest about whether your needs are truly unique. Third, assess whether you have the team, the focus, and the long-term bandwidth to maintain what you build.
This framework cuts through bias and turns the decision into a deliberate, informed process. Too many organizations confuse “complex” with “unique” and end up building for the wrong reasons. Others overestimate capability and assume they can scale unsupported tech over time. Both paths lead to waste.
A smart, structured approach keeps the business grounded. It helps leadership stay forward-focused while reducing the risk of fragmented platforms, cost overrun, and functionality gaps.
This framework is about removing ego from the equation. The urge to build can feel progressive, but it only pays off when there’s strong alignment between the capability and business strategy. That alignment should be measurable, not just aspirational.
Executives need to remain critical about internal capabilities. Building software is not just about writing code, it’s about roadmaps, architectural planning, support capacity, and change management. In short, maintenance needs to be part of the calculation, always.
Hybrid approaches enabled by modern architectures offer flexible solutions
The technology landscape today offers more flexibility than it did just a few years ago. The rise of low-code platforms, API-first solutions, and microservices architectures gives CIOs a wider range of options for solving complex problems. You no longer need to choose between fully building or fully buying. You can do both, strategically.
In the cases of both Assetlink and Seymour Whyte, the most effective results didn’t come from a strict build or buy mindset. Instead, the success came from knowing which pieces to build for differentiation, and which ones to buy for speed and stability. These platforms allowed customization where it mattered, and tight integration where it counted. That’s the advantage of modern tooling, selective development and rapid assembly.
This hybrid model is a reflection of how enterprise architecture is evolving. It gives organizations the ability to adapt quickly while preserving ownership over what makes their business unique.
What executives need to keep in mind is that composability is becoming a default strategy. Businesses don’t need to rely entirely on internal engineering for innovation. You can curate best-of-breed components from the ecosystem and stitch them together through extensible architectures. This reduces cycle times without sacrificing control.
But hybrid strategies still require disciplined execution. Fragmentation and over-integration are risks if governance and long-term vision aren’t in place. Build what delivers advantage. Buy what scales. Connect it all cleanly. That’s operational maturity.
The rise of AI amplifies the urgency in making build vs. buy decisions
AI has changed the rules. Waiting to see how it all plays out isn’t a real strategy anymore, it’s a risk. The pace is too fast, and the transformation is already in motion. Organizations that hold back will fall behind quickly, not just in capability but in relevance.
That doesn’t mean every company should build its own AI solutions. The right move depends on your specific context. If AI is directly tied to your value proposition, something your competitors can’t replicate easily, then building a tailored, proprietary model might be a smart bet. But if the application is more operational or standardized, like demand forecasting or document processing, buying a proven, commercial AI tool lets you move faster and focus effort where it counts.
The key is to assess whether AI will differentiate your business or simply support it. That answer should guide whether you build or buy. This isn’t just about cost or timelines anymore, it’s about future viability.
For C-suite leaders, the conversation around AI needs to shift from “if” to “how fast and in what form.” The landscape is evolving, yes, but that’s not a reason to wait. It’s actually the reason to act with precision. You don’t just need to adopt AI. You need to align AI investments with your ability to scale them, govern them, and derive real advantage from them.
Execution matters here more than intent. Adopting AI tools without a plan leads to redundancy and inefficiency. But failing to act at all means your real competitors will set the pace, and they’ll do it without you.
Key executive takeaways
- Prioritize strategic alignment in build vs buy decisions: Leaders should assess whether the software directly supports a core differentiator. If it does, building may justify the investment. If not, buying is often faster, cheaper, and more sustainable.
- Build when functionality defines your market edge: When your workflows or IP are fundamental to your value proposition, custom development allows tighter alignment and long-term control. It’s not about uniqueness for its own sake, it’s about protecting and scaling what sets you apart.
- Buy when needs are standard and speed matters: If the required functionality is mature, widely available, and not central to competitive advantage, buying accelerates deployment and optimizes team focus. Use commercial platforms with extensible APIs to enhance integration without reinventing the wheel.
- Use a structured framework to mitigate risk: To avoid failed projects, evaluate three factors, strategic importance, requirement uniqueness, and internal capability. A clear decision framework grounds build vs buy calls in business value, not bias or assumptions.
- Embrace modern hybrid strategies to stay agile: Leaders should leverage low-code tools, API-first platforms, and modular architectures to blend custom builds with best-in-class solutions. This approach supports innovation while maintaining speed, flexibility, and system integrity.
- Respond to AI with urgency and clarity: AI has shifted the risk landscape, waiting is now often the riskier move. Leaders should invest in AI where it drives differentiation and adopt proven tools quickly where it enhances operations, ensuring their tech strategy keeps pace with market shifts.
