We went for a vendor to replace one of our internal tools. It looked too costly to pay team of 4 engineers a year to support it. Unfortunately, the part "imple

We went for a vendor to replace one of our internal tools. It looked too costly to pay team of 4 engineers a year to support it. Unfortunately, the part "implement a vendor and see how you like it" went only with the first half. Complaints of developers supposed to be using the tool were brushed aside as a simple resistance of change. In the end it was implemented by decree from higher management. Only after all the paperwork was signed, we started to see that the vendor doesnt support our usecases, that their hardware is underpowered for the load we were expecting, e.t.c ... In the end, I have heard at least 20 various senior and beyond senior engineers from various teams complaining that they spend 20 to 50 % of time working around the vendors bugs, around once a month bringing down vendors infrastructure, because our use-case mandated uploading more data than the infra could handle. I definitely agree that clear requirement list and clearly scoped project and implementing a vendor to see how you like it is usually better than in-house On the other hand in-house is usually better than implementing a random vendor because management feels like it ;)