What’s Missing From The Following Slide?
In Another Discussion Stream – A Possible Answer To The Above Question?
JWH – There are some situations where a simple “plug & play” buy solution makes sense. There are also situations where a “build-it-yourself” solution strategy is more appropriate.
However, a hybrid approach using an agent-based development and implementation model in which the practitioner takes the lead exponentially increases the likelihood of initiative success, regardless of whether it’s buy or build.
In short, it is not about technology—it has never been and will never be. You must always have a build mentality, even in a buy scenario!
Michael Lamoureux – If you are NOT a software company, it is NEVER build. NEVER, EVER. Especially since “Build” typically means outsourcing to a Big X who are typically specialist implementors, not builders, who will just have to outsource to a Dev Shop and add a high margin to manage that for you IF they want to get it right. (Just Google “Accenture Hertz Lawsuit” to see what happens when they get it wrong, so the smart Big X really do add a layer between you and outsource Dev Shops in South America, Eastern Europe, or India … and that last option ain’t always great either!) And that will cost 5X to 10X, take significantly longer than you expect, and rarely deliver entirely what you want.
The debate should be “assemble vs. buy”, because the most you should do is determine whether its best to go with one provider who provides some functionality across the board for a function, but maybe not as deep as you want in certain areas. In this case, you are deciding whether you are going to select a bunch of best of breed and oversee the integration (one time cost) or “orchestration” (year over year SaaS fee) yourself vs. just selecting one of the same old Big Suite providers.
JWH – Michael Lamoureux, you make an excellent point about assembling versus building, which is precisely what Peak Utility Services Group did with AdaptOne (a software company)!
In that context, and according to today’s Procurement Insights article, the Buy versus Build debate is not only moot but also a silver or lead deception meant to scare practitioners into buying.
Assemble and Buy is the way to go, and to that is to move away from the mass-production scalability myth of the buy solution providers and deal with providers like AdaptOne, Focal Point and ConvergentIS
PI Post Link: https://bit.ly/4ghrI6j
Michael Lamoureux – correct; you need to maintain the “build” mentality, but build is not build from scratch, it’s build from components, the same way we used to assemble our own desktop systems …
if orchestration providers figure this out, they may become the assemblers of the SaaS world …
JWH – Michael Lamoureux exactly – Shaun Syvertsen Anders Lillevik Matthew Buckingham Zach Bolt Holly S Glennon John Davis Rod Sherkin Angela Frank Kelly Barner this is your cue.
Meanwhile, check out this link – https://bit.ly/3ALuNvQ
Pooya Kabiri, Ph.D., PMP, EIT, 6SBB – The timeline and risk profile of a project are key factors in determining the right approach—it’s less about the technology and more about how to deliver effectively. While building in-house provides greater control, it often comes with higher costs, longer timelines, and a steep learning curve. On the other hand, fully outsourcing can introduce challenges like limitations in customization, compatibility, and scalability.
A hybrid approach that leverages core in-house strengths alongside external supply chain capabilities offers the best of both worlds: speed, customization, scalability, and cost control. However, it’s crucial to develop a clear strategy from the start and recognize that managing a hybrid solution requires thoughtful effort and coordination.
JWH – Pooya Kabiri, Ph.D., PMP, EIT, 6SBB, spot on!
As highlighted in the discussions with Michael Lamoureux and Tom Craig, James Carithers took charge. He leveraged the resources provided by a problem-solving rather than product-pushing solution provider by using an agent-based model to assemble and buy rather than build or buy a solution.
30
Procurement Insights 
Sievo Webinar On Buy Versus Build Good, But Incomplete
Posted on December 12, 2024
0
What’s Missing From The Following Slide?
In Another Discussion Stream – A Possible Answer To The Above Question?
JWH – There are some situations where a simple “plug & play” buy solution makes sense. There are also situations where a “build-it-yourself” solution strategy is more appropriate.
However, a hybrid approach using an agent-based development and implementation model in which the practitioner takes the lead exponentially increases the likelihood of initiative success, regardless of whether it’s buy or build.
In short, it is not about technology—it has never been and will never be. You must always have a build mentality, even in a buy scenario!
Michael Lamoureux – If you are NOT a software company, it is NEVER build. NEVER, EVER. Especially since “Build” typically means outsourcing to a Big X who are typically specialist implementors, not builders, who will just have to outsource to a Dev Shop and add a high margin to manage that for you IF they want to get it right. (Just Google “Accenture Hertz Lawsuit” to see what happens when they get it wrong, so the smart Big X really do add a layer between you and outsource Dev Shops in South America, Eastern Europe, or India … and that last option ain’t always great either!) And that will cost 5X to 10X, take significantly longer than you expect, and rarely deliver entirely what you want.
The debate should be “assemble vs. buy”, because the most you should do is determine whether its best to go with one provider who provides some functionality across the board for a function, but maybe not as deep as you want in certain areas. In this case, you are deciding whether you are going to select a bunch of best of breed and oversee the integration (one time cost) or “orchestration” (year over year SaaS fee) yourself vs. just selecting one of the same old Big Suite providers.
JWH – Michael Lamoureux, you make an excellent point about assembling versus building, which is precisely what Peak Utility Services Group did with AdaptOne (a software company)!
In that context, and according to today’s Procurement Insights article, the Buy versus Build debate is not only moot but also a silver or lead deception meant to scare practitioners into buying.
Assemble and Buy is the way to go, and to that is to move away from the mass-production scalability myth of the buy solution providers and deal with providers like AdaptOne, Focal Point and ConvergentIS
PI Post Link: https://bit.ly/4ghrI6j
Michael Lamoureux – correct; you need to maintain the “build” mentality, but build is not build from scratch, it’s build from components, the same way we used to assemble our own desktop systems …
if orchestration providers figure this out, they may become the assemblers of the SaaS world …
JWH – Michael Lamoureux exactly – Shaun Syvertsen Anders Lillevik Matthew Buckingham Zach Bolt Holly S Glennon John Davis Rod Sherkin Angela Frank Kelly Barner this is your cue.
Meanwhile, check out this link – https://bit.ly/3ALuNvQ
Pooya Kabiri, Ph.D., PMP, EIT, 6SBB – The timeline and risk profile of a project are key factors in determining the right approach—it’s less about the technology and more about how to deliver effectively. While building in-house provides greater control, it often comes with higher costs, longer timelines, and a steep learning curve. On the other hand, fully outsourcing can introduce challenges like limitations in customization, compatibility, and scalability.
A hybrid approach that leverages core in-house strengths alongside external supply chain capabilities offers the best of both worlds: speed, customization, scalability, and cost control. However, it’s crucial to develop a clear strategy from the start and recognize that managing a hybrid solution requires thoughtful effort and coordination.
JWH – Pooya Kabiri, Ph.D., PMP, EIT, 6SBB, spot on!
As highlighted in the discussions with Michael Lamoureux and Tom Craig, James Carithers took charge. He leveraged the resources provided by a problem-solving rather than product-pushing solution provider by using an agent-based model to assemble and buy rather than build or buy a solution.
30
Share this:
Related