In the digital era, few decisions shape strategy more than the choice between building bespoke software and buying an off-the-shelf solution. It is a deceptively simple question: procure or create? However, behind it lie questions of control, cost, speed, and future resilience.
In the end, the right choice is specific to the context. In some situations, off-the-shelf may be better, for the sake of speed and initial cost; in others, a custom platform may save money in the long run and will perform better. However, the wrong decision can tie a business into rigid systems, hidden costs, and long-term inefficiency. The difficulty is that both paths promise value, and both carry risk.
In an age where digital products are getting more comprehensive and complete, but also where efficiency is paramount to success in competitive fields, deciding between building or buying has become increasingly more difficult. It is no longer a purely technical decision; it is a strategic one, one that determines how a company evolves.
The False Binary
This question is often framed as a binary: build for control, buy for convenience. In reality, the distinction is far more nuanced.
When you buy off-the-shelf, the allure is the speed and predictability. The prebuilt platforms are marketed as tested, supported, and ready to deploy. For companies just starting out or for quick modernisation, this seems like the obvious choice.
Building, on the other hand, promises flexibility. Software that is designed precisely for the company’s needs, integrated with its existing systems, and reflective of its culture and workflows. This allows for growth and innovation in the long term.
Yet both narratives conceal trade-offs. Off-the-shelf products accelerate implementation but enforce conformity inside a one-size-fits-all methodology. Custom solutions empower differentiation but require discipline, investment, and vision.
The Case for Buying
Buying software is attractive for understandable reasons. It delivers quick functionality with lower upfront cost and predictable maintenance.
For commodity functions (accounting, payroll, email), this approach makes perfect sense. The problem to solve is well-defined, and the market already provides mature, secure solutions. There is little strategic value in ‘reinventing the wheel’.
The advantages are clear:
- Speed: deployment can begin within weeks.
- Standardisation: industry best practices are built in.
- Support: responsibility for updates, compliance, and security sits with the vendor.
However, the very strengths of off-the-shelf software can become its weaknesses. The standardisation that allows for a product to have utility is also what limits differentiation and control. Innovation in the system is reliant on the vendor, and this indirectly trickles down into the innovation of a company. Furthermore, integration isn’t always as simple as “just install the application we’ve paid for”; there are often complex issues with bringing workflows into something that has different ideas for how a process or project works.
Buying will always look cheaper on the surface. However, costs accrue through licence fees, user limits, and dependency on vendor timelines. In effect, the company is trading off flexibility for supposed convenience.
For companies whose competitive advantage lies in process uniqueness (logistics, analytics, client engagement, or data intelligence) that trade may be too expensive.
The Case for Building
Building software offers the opposite equation: higher initial cost, but greater long-term control.
Custom development allows an organisation to design around its own logic, the exact workflows, data relationships, and performance indicators that are the foundation of a company’s success. It evolves and extends with the business and is built to slot in seamlessly, rather than being something the business must adapt to.
Bespoke systems are strategic assets. They encode the company’s way of thinking. When built correctly, they scale and adapt in ways off-the-shelf products cannot.
The value of building is not limited to functionality; it extends to ownership, adaptability, and integration. A system designed internally or with a partner like CBOS can evolve continuously, incorporating automation, AI, and analytics as the organisation matures.
As mentioned above, for accounting, payroll, and email, there are products for each. Very seldom are there products with all of them seamlessly put together. The problem becomes not that there aren’t products that do each of these things, but that there aren’t products that do all of them in one.
This adaptability translates directly into competitive advantage. A company that controls its own software can innovate faster, respond to regulatory change sooner, and shape user experience around its brand rather than a vendor’s template.
The risk will then lie in the scope, discipline, and delivery. Building requires governance of the project, a long-term commitment, and skilled execution, which, if done in-house, can be tricky. Without these key factors, custom projects can overrun and underperform, but when they are well-managed, their cumulative return dwarfs their cost.
The Hidden Costs of Buying
The majority of the time, the cost of off-the-shelf software is underestimated. While the subscription price is visible, the operational friction it introduces is not.
A system designed for thousands of generic users will never align perfectly with one company’s specific processes. The moment it becomes more complicated than the normal everyday workflows of a company is the moment people stop using it properly. All this means is an expensive reskinning of the same workflows as before, without eliminating the inefficiencies.
Integration becomes another point of strain. Many vendors promise “plug-and-play” interoperability, yet connecting disparate systems into a coherent ecosystem often demands significant development work and consulting. The time and effort required to integrate an off-the-shelf product with existing software or with other off-the-shelf products is always underestimated. This often becomes the most taxing and costly part of buying a pre-built platform, as the difficulty and effort required to integrate costs time and money.
Licensing models that charge per user or per transaction can turn recurring costs into permanent overhead.
By the time these hidden costs are realised, the company has invested too deeply to change direction.
The Hidden Costs of Building
Custom systems are not without their own risks. They require skilled developers, ongoing maintenance, and a clear vision of both current and future needs.
The greatest danger is not technical complexity but organisational discipline. It is very easy for a software project, especially if done in-house, to overwhelm the resources and patience of a company. A custom project that lacks governance and a clear scope is bound for failure. Without strong governance, the scope expands unnecessarily, priorities shift, and the system becomes a mirror of the internal confusion of the company.
The antidote is structure. Successful custom development begins with defined objectives, measurable outcomes, and phased delivery. Each phase provides actual measurable value that increases support and encourages movement onto the next phases. This approach, which CBOS employs across all its projects, ensures the organisational discipline on their part and the client’s.
If managed correctly, custom software will only appreciate over time. The system can evolve with the company’s growth rather than become a limiting factor.
Strategic Alignment: The Real Deciding Factor
If the process being digitised is non-differentiating (shared across industries and unlikely to provide an advantage), then buying is rational. It frees internal teams to focus on strategic innovation rather than reinventing utilities.
If the process is core to differentiation (defining customer experience, proprietary data handling, or unique service delivery), then building is essential. Off-the-shelf systems may support it, but they cannot express it.
This is the distinction between operating and competing. Companies that buy generic systems operate efficiently; companies that build aligned systems compete effectively.
The goal, in practice, is rarely pure building or pure buying. The best architectures combine both. In effect, a custom system can incorporate everything a business does, so even if there is a product on the market that does a portion of a company’s functionality, it rarely combines all of it.
At CBOS, this balance forms the foundation of every engagement. The company’s role is not to push a particular model but to help clients make the right architectural decisions for their goals, budget, and long-term vision.
We assess where a standard system will suffice and where custom development is required. The key difference is that once this has been decided, the standard systems are incorporated alongside the custom development. That way, you never end up with unaligned and disorganised workflows.
- Written and researched by Sean Veldboer, Consultant at CBOS.