3 ms·
I do feel that often the cost of integration in the 'buy' solution is often overlooked: there are many fantastically expensive products you can buy which will d
by rcxdude 3y ago
I do feel that often the cost of integration in the 'buy' solution is often overlooked: there are many fantastically expensive products you can buy which will do almost anything you can imagine, if you spend the time and effort to figure out the platform and 'configure it how you want ' (where configuring requires a software engineer because it's varying degrees of disguised programming) . It's very easy to spend more time and money doing this than an in-house solution would.
- convolvatron 3y agodon't forget maintenance. that's often a point made against internal tooling, but when was the last forced upgrade you had to do because an internal tool just doesn't support the old environment anymore?
- jamesfinlayson 3y agoOr the inevitable migration to another tool because the current off-the-shelf solution is now too expensive/has been relicensed/whatever.
- kageiit 3y agoI was leading such a team at previous employer focused on building integrating various tools to turn this tool soup into something palatable. The main challenge is the increasing complexity of software and processes that necessitate such tools as the engineering team grows. Usually teams building internal tools are seen as cost centers and don't get the same funding as product teams which eventually leads to teams buying more than build to save on future maintenance.
- bostik 3y agoI've been saying this for more than TWO DECADES: the entire "build vs. buy" is a false premise. There is no such thing as "buy". There is "build", and then there is "buy and build". Without the proper integrations and customisations, any tool you have bought is just one more (possibly worse than) useless line item in your budget.