3 ms·
Perhaps I was overly grumpy. But I get pulled into these discussions a lot. The company now has a very strong newly (2 years) developed "buy not build" mentalit
by georgyo 6y ago
Perhaps I was overly grumpy. But I get pulled into these discussions a lot. The company now has a very strong newly (2 years) developed "buy not build" mentality.
Half the products we have bought have had full internal teams to support. And many don't suite our needs, so we have enitre development teams building abstractions that are more complex than the product we bought so we can use the product we bought. And some of those abstractions have been in development for 2 years so no one can use the product yet.
My only point is that buying vs building is complex. When you boil that down to a tool that essentially says always buy, it causes a bit of PTSD for me.
- kdelok 6y agoEven if it does boil down to that, there might still be value in ranking the savings per service you buy in. Except for a core product, it is almost always going to be the case that buying in is cheaper than building it. However, having limited resources, it's valuable to work out what tools could give you the best value for money, and which others are a more marginal call (given the uncertainty about support work etc.)
- wil421 6y agoSounds like your company needs to do a little more evaluation and due diligence before buy an off the shelf product. I work at “Megacorp” and it took way less than 2 years to get 20k employees and an equal number of customers onto our off the shelf ticketing platform.
- rightbyte 6y agoI see this alot too. Products that are forced from above and not used, used under gun point etc. Also products that kinda don't fit in and where it would be just better to build it in house since the subset of functionaliy that is needed is quite small, and so on.
- rachelbythebay 6y agoDo you work at Lyft?