The Build vs Buy Dillemma

Every company exploring AI ends up facing the same fundamental question: should we buy or build? The choice sounds binary, but it rarely is. It’s not simply a question of software procurement, it’s about control, differentiation, and operational reality.

Buying off-the-shelf tools promises speed, lower upfront effort, and instant access to mature functionality. Building promises tighter alignment with how your business works and the chance to protect what makes you different. But neither extreme holds up when AI needs to live inside regulated, complex organizations.

The real challenge isn’t choosing aside; it’s deciding where to standardize and where to stay unique.

For every process step, leaders have to ask:

↗ What must remain consistent and compliant across the business?

↗ Where do we truly differentiate, and how do we preserve that edge?

↗ Whatshould we own - data, workflows, logic, or user experience?

↗ What can we safely rent - models, infrastructure, or commodity capabilities?

Most successful organizations don’t pick “buy” or “build.” They operate in the hybrid middle, buying proven components, then building the connective tissue that embeds them into real workflows. That’s where the competitive advantage lives: not in the algorithm itself, but in the way it’s woven into your business.

It’s easy to understand the appeal of a buy-only mindset. It feels efficient, manageable, and safe. Yet when you look closer, the logic collapses.

Any AI tool you buy still demands integration, authentication, data access, security, logging, monitoring, and infrastructure. Without that, it can’t operate responsibly within your environment.

If tools sit outside your core systems (your content management platform, CRM, or regulated document repositories) they quickly become side tools. They may check a box for “AI adoption,” but they don’t change how work happens.

Worse, a collection of unconnected SaaS tools and platforms creates user friction and governance chaos. Each comes with its own login, data model, and roadmap. Users abandon what’s cumbersome; compliance teams can’t track it; IT can’t maintain it.

And even when a vendor delivers stability, you still lack feature control. Product updates change behavior, APIs break, and your processes must adapt. Eventually, you end up building anyway - just reactively, not strategically.

In reality, there is no such thing as a buy-only strategy. You can outsource capabilities, but not responsibility. You still need to design the architecture, integration, and governance that make those tools useful.

‍

It’s easy to understand the appeal of a buy-only mindset. It feels efficient, manageable, and safe. Yet when you look closer, the logic collapses.

Any AI tool you buy still demands integration, authentication, data access, security, logging, monitoring, and infrastructure. Without that, it can’t operate responsibly within your environment.

If tools sit outside your core systems (your content management platform, CRM, or regulated document repositories) they quickly become side tools. They may check a box for “AI adoption,” but they don’t change how work happens.

Worse, a collection of unconnected SaaS tools and platforms creates user friction and governance chaos. Each comes with its own login, data model, and roadmap. Users abandon what’s cumbersome; compliance teams can’t track it; IT can’t maintain it.

And even when a vendor delivers stability, you still lack feature control. Product updates change behavior, APIs break, and your processes must adapt. Eventually, you end up building anyway - just reactively, not strategically.

In reality, there is no such thing as a buy-only strategy. You can outsource capabilities, but not responsibility. You still need to design the architecture, integration, and governance that make those tools useful.

‍

The smarter question isn’t what tools should we buy - it’s how do our processes actually work? Once you understand that, the build vs. buy decision becomes straightforward.

Standardized processesare repeatable, well-understood, and largely identical across companies. Their goal is reliability and compliance, not differentiation. For these, off-the-shelf AI solutions make sense, provided they integrate seamlessly into your systems and don’t force new ways of working.

Unique processes, on the other hand, capture how you really compete: how teams collaborate, how approvals flow, how insight turns into action. These are rarely well-served by generic tools. Pushing them into rigid templates often creates frustration and shadow work.

For these cases, you still start from existing technology, but you build on top. That means orchestrating models, data, and UX around the way your organization already works. The aim isn’t reinvention, it’s alignment.

The right principle is simple:

Design the process first, then decide what to buy and what to build.

If you flip that order, you end up adapting people and processes to tools instead of the other way around.

The smarter question isn’t what tools should we buy - it’s how do our processes actually work? Once you understand that, the build vs. buy decision becomes straightforward.

Standardized processesare repeatable, well-understood, and largely identical across companies. Their goal is reliability and compliance, not differentiation. For these, off-the-shelf AI solutions make sense, provided they integrate seamlessly into your systems and don’t force new ways of working.

Unique processes, on the other hand, capture how you really compete: how teams collaborate, how approvals flow, how insight turns into action. These are rarely well-served by generic tools. Pushing them into rigid templates often creates frustration and shadow work.

For these cases, you still start from existing technology, but you build on top. That means orchestrating models, data, and UX around the way your organization already works. The aim isn’t reinvention, it’s alignment.

The right principle is simple:

Design the process first, then decide what to buy and what to build.

If you flip that order, you end up adapting people and processes to tools instead of the other way around.

Looking only at processes isn’t enough. You also need to understand what kind of value the AI is meant to deliver.

In some domains, success means being correct, producing standardized, auditable, and consistent results. Think simple document checks, data validation, or quality control. Here, off-the-shelf AI performs well. It’s tested, monitored, and constantly improved. Your job is to embed it within your governance framework and ensure traceability.

In other domains, success means being distinctive. Content generation, customer engagement, decision support. These areas define how you appear and compete. If you rely entirely on a generic model or vendor logic, your output becomes indistinguishable from everyone else’s.

That doesn’t mean you must train your own model. Using a shared LLM or platform is perfectly fine. The difference lies in how you adapt it: enriching it with your own data, context, rules, and tone. Differentiation comes from the system built around the model, not the model itself.

The guiding idea:

↗For correctness, lean on shared technology but enforce your governance.

↗For differentiation, own the orchestration, your prompts, workflows, evaluation, and experience.

‍

Looking only at processes isn’t enough. You also need to understand what kind of value the AI is meant to deliver.

In some domains, success means being correct, producing standardized, auditable, and consistent results. Think simple document checks, data validation, or quality control. Here, off-the-shelf AI performs well. It’s tested, monitored, and constantly improved. Your job is to embed it within your governance framework and ensure traceability.

In other domains, success means being distinctive. Content generation, customer engagement, decision support. These areas define how you appear and compete. If you rely entirely on a generic model or vendor logic, your output becomes indistinguishable from everyone else’s.

That doesn’t mean you must train your own model. Using a shared LLM or platform is perfectly fine. The difference lies in how you adapt it: enriching it with your own data, context, rules, and tone. Differentiation comes from the system built around the model, not the model itself.

The guiding idea:

↗For correctness, lean on shared technology but enforce your governance.

↗For differentiation, own the orchestration, your prompts, workflows, evaluation, and experience.

‍

When it comes to AI, hybrid is nota compromise, it’s the default reality.

“Build” in 2025 doesn’t mean training your own foundation models. It means constructing the architecture and workflows that turn generic AI capabilities into business value.

You buy the base: the models, platforms, and proven components for commodity tasks like OCR, summarization, or semantic search. You leverage tech giant and industry R&D instead of reinventing it.

Then you build the system around it: the data pipelines, prompts, business rules, guardrails, approvals, and feedback loops that encode how your organization thinks and operates.

Finally, you embed AI in existing workflows. Users should encounter AI inside the systems they already know, Salesforce, Veeva, SharePoint, or your data platforms, not in yet another standalone interface. One coherent flow, not ten disconnected tools.

This approach delivers speed without surrendering control. It’s faster than building everything from scratch, safer than buying a shelf full of disconnected tools, and a solidfoundation for the agentic future ahead. As AI agents begin to span entire processes,connected systems and governed architectures will be the difference betweenscaling smoothly and starting over.

‍

When it comes to AI, hybrid is nota compromise, it’s the default reality.

“Build” in 2025 doesn’t mean training your own foundation models. It means constructing the architecture and workflows that turn generic AI capabilities into business value.

You buy the base: the models, platforms, and proven components for commodity tasks like OCR, summarization, or semantic search. You leverage tech giant and industry R&D instead of reinventing it.

Then you build the system around it: the data pipelines, prompts, business rules, guardrails, approvals, and feedback loops that encode how your organization thinks and operates.

Finally, you embed AI in existing workflows. Users should encounter AI inside the systems they already know, Salesforce, Veeva, SharePoint, or your data platforms, not in yet another standalone interface. One coherent flow, not ten disconnected tools.

This approach delivers speed without surrendering control. It’s faster than building everything from scratch, safer than buying a shelf full of disconnected tools, and a solidfoundation for the agentic future ahead. As AI agents begin to span entire processes,connected systems and governed architectures will be the difference betweenscaling smoothly and starting over.

‍

AI strategy isn’t about choosingsides. It’s about designing a system that fits your business.
‍

↗ “Buy-only” is a myth. Even off-the-shelf tools require builders for integration, governance, and user experience.

↗ Processes first. Standardized steps fit off-the-shelf; unique flows often need tailored orchestration to preserve how you work.

↗ Domains matter. Use shared components for correctness and compliance; own the context and guardrails where you differentiate.

↗ Hybrid is the norm. Buy the base, build the system, and embed AI into existing workflows.

↗ Think architecture, not tools. The decisions you make now determine whether AI will integrate seamlessly or create tomorrow’s complexity.
‍

The real competitive advantagewon’t come from the AI you buy or the AI you build - but from how deliberatelyyou choose, connect, and own the parts that truly matter.

‍