To Build or Not to Build?!?

Drawing from my hands-on experience with both building custom asset finance software and opting for pre-built solutions, I've traversed the full spectrum of challenges and triumphs that come with each approach. Reflecting on these experiences, I aim to delve deeper into the nuanced realities that shaped our decisions and outcomes, offering a more granular perspective that builds upon my earlier discourse.

Embarking on the journey to build our custom software, the initial excitement stemmed from the allure of having a solution tailored precisely to our unique processes and legacy systems. The vision was clear: a bespoke system that fits like a glove. However, the path was fraught with unforeseen complexities and steep learning curves.

?

Reflecting on Expertise and Ongoing Maintenance

My journey through both the creation and adoption of asset finance software highlighted the monumental effort required to stay ahead in a sector riddled with complex regulations and ever-evolving financial practices. Building from scratch meant assembling a team capable of not just initial development but ongoing adaptation to new regulations and cybersecurity threats. This was no small feat; it required a continuous investment in training and development to keep our team at the know-how let alone the cutting edge. The cost, both in terms of time and financial resources, was substantial.

?

In contrast, opting to buy a solution introduced us to a world where this burden was lifted off our shoulders. The software vendor’s dedicated teams of experts who lived and breathed regulatory compliance and security meant that we could redirect our focus toward strategic business initiatives. The relief of not having to micro-manage software compliance and maintenance was palpable and liberating.

?

Time to Market and Efficiency: A Tale of Two Timelines

Developing our solution was akin to embarking on a journey without a clear endpoint. Despite our best efforts to adhere to timelines, software development is inherently unpredictable, with roadblocks and detours appearing without warning. As Asset Financiers, we are not technology companies. The aspiration for a bespoke system that perfectly meshed with our legacy systems was noble, but the journey was long and fraught with delays.

?

The decision to buy changed our trajectory significantly. Suddenly, the path to deploying advanced asset finance software was not only visible but within immediate reach. The efficiency gains were immediate, from streamlined workflows to enhanced customer service. Moreover, the vendor’s robust training programs ensured that our team transitioned smoothly, minimizing downtime and maximizing our investment’s value from day one.

?

The Real Costs of Ownership

Having navigated both the build and buy paths, the concept of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) took on a new, more nuanced meaning. Initially, building seemed like a cost-effective solution—after all, we were in control of the budget and scope. However, hidden costs emerged over time, including maintenance, updates, and the need for ongoing development to meet evolving needs.

?

Buying, on the other hand, offered a more predictable cost model. While the upfront expense was higher, it became increasingly clear that this route offered a more stable and sustainable financial structure over the long term. The economies of scale achieved by the software vendor, coupled with their ability to spread development costs across a wider user base, provided us with a feature-rich solution at a more manageable cost.

?

Integration Insights: Bridging Systems

The integration of our custom-built software with existing systems was a Herculean task. Despite our best efforts, the process was cumbersome, time-consuming, and fraught with compatibility issues. This experience taught us the value of simplicity and compatibility—a lesson that came to life when we opted to buy a pre-built solution.

?

Pre-built software came with a suite of integration tools and APIs that drastically simplified the process of connecting our legacy systems. The difference was night and day; what once was a source of constant frustration became a smooth, manageable process. This ease of integration not only saved us time and money but also safeguarded our operational continuity during the transition.

?

Scalability and Flexibility: Preparing for the Future

Building our system gave us control but at the cost of flexibility. As our business grew, the custom system struggled to keep pace, requiring significant rework and investment to scale alongside our operations. This experience was a hard lesson in the importance of foresight and flexibility in software development.

?

Choosing a pre-built solution opened our eyes to the possibilities of scalable, flexible software architecture. The ability to select and customize modules meant that we could tailor the software to our needs without being constrained by the limitations of our initial build. This adaptability has been crucial in supporting our business’s growth and will continue to be a cornerstone of our strategy moving forward.

?

The Human Cost of Building

Embarking on the project to build our asset finance software was initially met with enthusiasm and a sense of pioneering spirit among the team. However, as the months rolled on, the project's mental and physical toll became increasingly evident. The relentless pace, coupled with the complexity of the task, stretched our team to its limits, leading to burnout and stress that rippled through our lives both inside and outside of work.

?

The mental strain was palpable. Team members faced the constant pressure of solving complex problems, meeting tight deadlines, and navigating the ever-shifting landscape of regulatory compliance. Physically, the long hours and weekend work took a toll, disrupting work-life balance and leading to noticeable fatigue.

?

Project and Team Fatigue: A Pervasive Challenge

As the project stretched beyond its initial timelines, a sense of fatigue began to set in. What started as a marathon had turned into an ultramarathon, with the finish line perpetually just out of reach. This project fatigue was not just about tired individuals; it permeated the entire team, leading to a decline in motivation and productivity. Creativity and innovation suffered as the team became mired in the day-to-day grind, losing sight of the project's strategic objectives.

?

The impact of this fatigue on team dynamics was significant. Collaboration and communication began to falter, and the camaraderie that had initially fueled our progress waned. The prolonged focus on building the software, with its constant challenges and setbacks, created a pervasive sense of weariness and disillusionment among team members.

?

Diverting Key Talent from Core Business Operations

Perhaps one of the most significant drawbacks of our decision to build was the necessity to reallocate our best people away from the business's core operations. This redirection of talent had a dual effect: not only did it slow the progress of the build project by removing these individuals from their areas of expertise, but it also left a noticeable gap in the leadership and execution within our core business functions.

?

The consequence was a double-edged sword. On one hand, we were building a solution that was meant to propel our business forward. On the other, we were simultaneously hampering our current operations and growth potential by diverting our most capable individuals from their primary roles. This strategic misalignment not only delayed the software project but also impacted our market position and financial performance.

?

Reflecting on the Decision

In retrospect, the decision to build our asset finance software significantly underestimated the human element. The mental and physical strain on our team, combined with the fatigue and disruption to our core business, highlighted a critical oversight in our strategic planning. The allure of a bespoke system tailored to our exact specifications blinded us to the broader implications for our people and our business.

?

The experience has been a profound learning opportunity, underscoring the importance of considering the human costs in project planning and decision-making. For organizations contemplating a similar path, it’s crucial to weigh these factors heavily. In many cases, the decision to buy may not only be a strategic choice for business growth and efficiency but also a choice that supports the well-being and sustainability of the team tasked with driving that growth.

My experience traversing the build vs. buy landscape has been enlightening, challenging, and ultimately rewarding. While there may be scenarios where building is the right choice, my journey has led me to appreciate the strategic value of buying. This path has allowed us to focus on our core mission, leverage expertise we couldn’t hope to match internally, and provided a foundation for scalable, sustainable growth. For those standing at this crossroads, I hope my experience sheds light on the path that best aligns with your strategic goals and operational realities.

Having experienced both sides, the decision matrix is no longer just theoretical. It's grounded in the practical realities of resource allocation, expertise, and strategic focus. The allure of a bespoke system remains, but the practical benefits of buying—speed, expertise, and predictability in costs and outcomes—have reshaped my perspective.

?

In conclusion, the journey of building and then pivoting to buying has enriched our strategic thinking and operational agility. While there may be cases where building is warranted, the efficiencies, expertise, and focus that come with buying have made it the preferred path for us, ensuring that we remain on the cutting edge of asset finance services without being mired in software development complexities. This journey, shared in-depth, is a testament to the evolution of our approach, informed by the hard-earned wisdom of experience.

#AssetFinanceSoftware #BuildVsBuy #SoftwareDevelopment #TeamWellBeing #ProjectFatigue #MentalHealthInTech #StrategicDecisions #BusinessOperations #InnovationManagement #TechLeadership

?

?

?