Build vs Buy: Making the Productivity Platform Decision

The productivity platform decision frustrates leaders because the options seem incomparable:

Build custom? Full control, massive investment. Buy point solutions? Proven tools, integration complexity. Adopt a platform? Fewer tools, potential compromise.

Each approach has legitimate merits. The right choice depends on context that generic advice ignores.

This framework helps you make the decision for your specific situation.

The Three Approaches

Approach 1: Build Custom

What it means: Develop internal tools tailored to your exact needs.

Examples:

• Custom project management system
• Internal wiki/knowledge base
• Proprietary workflow tools
• Custom integrations layer

The appeal:

• Perfect fit for your processes
• No license costs (after development)
• Full control over features
• Competitive differentiation

The reality:

• Development cost: 6-18 months, multiple developers
• Ongoing maintenance: 20-40% of initial cost annually
• Opportunity cost: Engineering on internal tools, not products
• Feature velocity: Always behind commercial alternatives

Approach 2: Buy Point Solutions

What it means: Best-of-breed tool for each function.

Examples:

• Asana for projects + Slack for chat + Notion for docs + etc.

The appeal:

• Best features in each category
• Proven solutions, low risk
• Quick to adopt
• Teams choose what they like

The reality:

• Tool sprawl accumulates
• Integration tax compounds
• Context switching costs grow
• No unified organizational view

Approach 3: Adopt a Platform

What it means: Unified system covering multiple functions.

Examples:

• Microsoft 365 suite
• Google Workspace
• Unified platforms like Waymaker Commander

The appeal:

• Integrated by design
• Lower tool count
• Reduced integration needs
• Potential for organizational AI

The reality:

• May not be best-in-class in every function
• Vendor dependency
• Migration investment required
• Platform limitations affect all functions

The Decision Framework

Factor 1: Core Competency Alignment

Question: Is building productivity tools related to your core business?

If YES (software companies, certain tech organizations):

• Build has strategic merit
• Internal tools can become products
• Engineering talent exists

If NO (most organizations):

• Building diverts resources from core mission
• Buy or platform makes more sense
• Engineering should focus on differentiation

Factor 2: Specificity of Requirements

Question: How unique are your process requirements?

Highly unique:

• Regulated industries with specific compliance needs
• Proprietary workflows that create competitive advantage
• Unusual organizational structures

Typical:

• Standard project management needs
• Common collaboration patterns
• Normal communication requirements

Highly unique requirements favor building or heavy customization. Typical requirements favor buying proven solutions.

Factor 3: Scale and Resources

Question: What can you realistically support?

Smaller organizations typically can't sustain custom development. Larger organizations have more resources but also more integration complexity.

Factor 4: Total Cost of Ownership

Build TCO:

• Initial development: $200k-2M+ depending on scope
• Annual maintenance: 20-40% of initial cost
• Opportunity cost: What else could engineering build?

Buy (point solutions) TCO:

• Per-tool licensing: $10-50/user/month per tool
• Integration platforms: $6k-60k/year
• Integration maintenance: Significant ongoing cost
• Hidden costs: Context switching, knowledge silos

Platform TCO:

• Platform licensing: Varies widely ($15-50/user/month typical)
• Migration: One-time cost
• Lower integration overhead
• Consider full TCO calculation

Factor 5: AI Strategy

Question: What AI capabilities matter to you?

If organizational AI matters:

• Fragmented tools prevent unified AI
• Platforms enable context engineering
• Build custom could enable custom AI
• Point solutions create siloed AI

If AI is secondary:

• Less pressure toward unification
• Point solutions remain viable

This factor increasingly favors platforms as AI becomes strategic.

Decision Matrix

Build When:

✓ You're a software company and tools could become products ✓ Requirements are truly unique and create competitive advantage ✓ You have engineering capacity with no higher-value work ✓ Long-term total cost is lower than alternatives ✓ Vendor dependency is unacceptable

Buy Point Solutions When:

✓ Requirements vary significantly by department ✓ Teams are autonomous with different preferences ✓ Integration overhead is acceptable ✓ AI strategy doesn't require unified data ✓ Best-in-class features matter more than coherence

Adopt Platform When:

✓ Tool consolidation is a strategic priority ✓ Integration tax has become significant ✓ Organizational AI capability matters ✓ Current tool sprawl is creating problems ✓ Total cost of ownership favors unified approach

Common Decision Mistakes

Mistake 1: Building When You Shouldn't

The pattern: "Our requirements are unique"—but they're not that unique.

Reality check: Most "unique" requirements are variations on common needs. Custom building for 10% unique requirements while rebuilding 90% commodity features is rarely wise.

Better approach: Evaluate if platforms with customization can serve the unique 10%.

Mistake 2: Buying Without Total Cost View

The pattern: Compare license fees, ignore hidden costs.

Reality check: A $15/user/month tool that requires $30/user/month in integration overhead and context switching costs isn't cheap.

Better approach: Calculate full TCO including integration, training, switching costs.

Mistake 3: Platform Fear

The pattern: Avoid platforms because "too dependent on one vendor."

Reality check: Dependency on 47 vendors, each with their own roadmap changes, isn't independence. It's distributed dependency with higher complexity.

Better approach: Evaluate platform vendor risk specifically. It's often lower than aggregate point solution risk.

Mistake 4: Ignoring Future State

The pattern: Decide based only on current needs.

Reality check: AI capabilities require unified data. Decisions made now affect AI capability for years.

Better approach: Include strategic future state in decision criteria.

The Emerging Answer: Unified Platforms

Why Platforms Are Winning

The trend is toward platforms and away from point solution portfolios:

Reason 1: Integration tax became unsustainable As tool counts grew, integration costs compounded beyond acceptable levels.

Reason 2: AI requires unified data Context engineering isn't possible with fragmented tools.

Reason 3: Remote work amplified fragmentation pain Distributed teams experience tool chaos more acutely.

Reason 4: Productivity gains plateaued More tools stopped helping and started hurting.

The Platform Evaluation

Not all platforms are equal. Evaluate:

Completeness: Does it cover your essential functions? Flexibility: Can it adapt to your processes? AI capability: Does it enable organizational intelligence? Migration path: Is transition realistic? Vendor viability: Will they exist and improve long-term? Integration options: For functions it doesn't cover?

Experience Platform Coherence

Evaluating the platform approach? Waymaker Commander unifies projects, documents, and strategy—with AI that understands organizational context because the data is unified by design.

The result: Fewer tools, lower integration tax, better AI capability. The platform approach in practice.

Register for the beta and experience what unified work management enables.

---

Build vs. buy vs. platform isn't a universal answer—it's a contextual decision. Evaluate based on your core competency, requirement specificity, scale, total cost, and AI strategy. The trend favors platforms because integration tax, context switching, and AI requirements have shifted the calculus. But the right decision depends on your specific situation. Learn more about consolidation strategies and explore how context engineering influences platform decisions.

---

Stuart Leo has advised 200+ organizations on build vs. buy decisions. He's the author of Resolute and founder of Waymaker, designed as a platform destination for organizations escaping tool sprawl.