Your team needs code maintenance automation. You could build your own tools - scripts, pipelines, custom analysis. Or you could use AI-powered solutions like Devonair that handle the common cases intelligently. The build vs buy decision affects cost, capability, time to value, and ongoing maintenance burden.
The classic engineering temptation is to build. We're engineers - building is what we do. Custom solutions can be tailored exactly to our needs. But custom solutions also require ongoing investment, and engineering time spent on internal tools is time not spent on product. Meanwhile, AI has made the "buy" options dramatically more capable.
Making the right decision requires honest assessment of your specific needs, capabilities, and priorities.
The Build Option
Building means creating custom maintenance tooling.
What Building Looks Like
Creating your own solutions:
Custom build approach:
- Write scripts for common tasks
- Create analysis pipelines
- Build internal dashboards
- Develop custom automation
Engineering effort invested in internal tools.
When Building Makes Sense
Unique Requirements
When your needs are genuinely unique:
Build consideration:
- Unusual technology stack
- Unique business requirements
- Integration with proprietary systems
- No existing tool fits
Unique needs may require unique solutions.
Core Competency
When maintenance tooling is your business:
Build consideration:
- You sell developer tools
- Deep investment is justified
- Competitive advantage in tooling
If tooling is your product, build it.
Simple Needs
When a simple script suffices:
Build consideration:
- Very narrow requirement
- Simple implementation
- Minimal ongoing maintenance
Sometimes a 50-line script is the right answer.
Strengths of Building
Exact Fit
Tailored to your needs:
Build strength:
- Precisely what you need
- Nothing you don't
- Your workflow, your way
- Your terminology
Custom fits perfectly (in theory).
Full Control
You own it completely:
Build strength:
- Change anything
- Add any feature
- Remove any limitation
- No external dependencies
Total control over the solution.
Deep Integration
Can integrate tightly:
Build strength:
- With your specific systems
- With your specific workflow
- With proprietary components
- At any depth needed
Integration options are unlimited.
Weaknesses of Building
Ongoing Cost
Building is just the beginning:
Build weakness:
- Initial development cost
- Bug fixing forever
- Feature additions forever
- Security maintenance forever
- Documentation forever
The 80/20 rule inverts for internal tools - 20% to build, 80% to maintain.
Opportunity Cost
Engineers building tools aren't building product:
Build weakness:
- Senior engineers on infrastructure
- Not shipping product features
- Slower time to market
- Customers don't care about your tools
Time spent on tools is time not spent on value.
Limited Capability
Can't match focused investment:
Build weakness:
- You invest part-time
- Vendors invest full-time
- You solve your problems
- Vendors solve industry problems
Custom tools are narrower than purpose-built products.
Maintenance Burden
Internal tools become legacy:
Build weakness:
- Original builder leaves
- Knowledge is lost
- Tool becomes burden
- Nobody wants to maintain it
Internal tools accumulate their own technical debt.
The Buy Option
Buying means using existing AI-powered maintenance solutions.
What Buying Looks Like
Adopting existing solutions:
@devonair buy approach:
- Use purpose-built tools
- Leverage vendor investment
- Focus on configuration, not building
- Let others solve solved problems
Leveraging AI and external investment.
When Buying Makes Sense
Common Problems
When your problems are common:
Buy consideration:
- Dependency updates (solved problem)
- Code quality analysis (solved problem)
- Security scanning (solved problem)
- Standard workflows (solved problem)
Don't rebuild solved problems.
Focus on Product
When your time is better spent elsewhere:
Buy consideration:
- Engineering time is limited
- Product needs attention
- Maintenance isn't your business
Focus on what differentiates you.
Fast Time to Value
When speed matters:
Buy consideration:
- Need results now
- Can't wait for custom development
- Value faster than build time
Buy is almost always faster.
Strengths of Buying
Immediate Capability
Start today:
@devonair buy strength:
- Deploy immediately
- Value from day one
- No development time
- Proven capabilities
Buy has unbeatable time to value.
Accumulated Investment
Vendors solve problems at scale:
@devonair buy strength:
- Years of development
- Many customers' feedback
- Edge cases handled
- Best practices embedded
You benefit from concentrated investment.
Ongoing Improvement
Someone else evolves the tool:
@devonair buy strength:
- Vendor updates regularly
- New features appear
- Bugs are fixed
- Security maintained
The solution improves without your effort.
Focused Engineering
Your engineers build product:
@devonair buy strength:
- Engineers on product features
- Not reinventing wheels
- Higher leverage activities
Engineering time goes to differentiation.
Weaknesses of Buying
Less Exact Fit
General solutions may not fit perfectly:
Buy weakness:
- Some features you don't need
- Some features you need are missing
- Workflows not exactly yours
- Configuration may be limited
General solutions have general fit.
External Dependency
You depend on the vendor:
Buy weakness:
- Vendor could change pricing
- Vendor could change direction
- Vendor could shut down
- Less control
Dependency carries risk.
Integration Limits
May not integrate everywhere:
Buy weakness:
- Predefined integrations
- May not support your stack
- May not depth you need
Integration options are bounded.
Comparing the Approaches
Direct comparison across key dimensions.
Time to Value
| Factor | Build | Buy | |--------|-------|-----| | Initial deployment | Weeks/months | Days | | First results | After development | Immediate | | Full capability | Ongoing | Quick configuration |
Buy wins on time to value.
Total Cost
| Factor | Build | Buy | |--------|-------|-----| | Upfront cost | High (dev time) | Low/medium (license) | | Ongoing cost | High (maintenance) | Predictable (subscription) | | Opportunity cost | High | Low | | Total | Often higher | Often lower |
Build has hidden costs that often exceed buy.
Capability
| Factor | Build | Buy | |--------|-------|-----| | Customization | Unlimited | Bounded | | Integration depth | Unlimited | Bounded | | Feature breadth | Limited | Broad | | Evolution | Self-funded | Vendor-funded |
Build offers depth; buy offers breadth.
Risk
| Factor | Build | Buy | |--------|-------|-----| | Development risk | Yes | No | | Maintenance risk | Yes | Transferred to vendor | | Vendor risk | No | Yes | | Knowledge risk | High | Lower |
Different risk profiles.
The Hybrid Approach
Most organizations do both.
Buy the Platform, Build the Customization
@devonair hybrid approach:
- Use existing tool for core capability
- Customize with configuration
- Build only truly unique integrations
- Layer custom automation on top
Buy the platform; build the glue.
Build Commodities into Platform
Hybrid approach:
- Buy for common needs
- Build for unique needs
- Migrate custom to buy when products catch up
Build only what isn't available.
Making the Decision
Framework for deciding.
Questions to Ask
Decision framework:
1. Is this a solved problem?
Yes → Lean toward buy
No → Consider build
2. Is this core to our business?
Yes → Consider build
No → Lean toward buy
3. Do we have expertise to build well?
Yes → Build is viable
No → Buy is safer
4. Do we have capacity to maintain?
Yes → Build is sustainable
No → Buy is safer
5. What's our time to value requirement?
Fast → Buy
Flexible → Either
Honest answers guide decision.
Red Flags for Build
Warning signs:
- "It's not that hard"
- "We can do it better"
- "We don't want to depend on vendors"
- "Let's just write a quick script"
These often precede regret.
Red Flags for Buy
Warning signs:
- "No solution fits our unique needs"
- "We haven't actually evaluated options"
- "The price seems high" (without total cost analysis)
These may indicate insufficient evaluation.
Getting Started
Make a deliberate choice.
Evaluate honestly:
@devonair evaluate:
- What problem are we solving?
- Is this a solved problem?
- What's our core competency?
- What's our capacity?
Explore options:
@devonair explore:
- What solutions exist?
- How well do they fit?
- What's the total cost?
Decide explicitly:
@devonair decide:
- Build only when clearly justified
- Buy when problem is solved
- Document the reasoning
Review periodically:
@devonair review:
- Did build deliver expected value?
- Has buy option improved?
- Should we migrate?
The build vs buy decision for maintenance tools is like any other: build when you have unique needs and the capacity to maintain; buy when the problem is solved and your time is better spent elsewhere. For most teams, buying maintenance automation makes more sense than building it.
FAQ
What if no existing tool fits our needs exactly?
Perfect fit is rarely necessary. Evaluate whether 80% fit with configuration is sufficient. Building for the last 20% often costs more than the entire bought solution. Consider whether the gap is actually critical.
How do we evaluate the total cost of building?
Include: initial development time × developer cost, ongoing maintenance (typically 4x initial development over 5 years), opportunity cost of not shipping product features, knowledge loss when builders leave. Compare honestly with buy costs.
What if the vendor goes out of business?
This is a real risk. Mitigate by choosing vendors with stable business models, evaluating data portability, and avoiding extreme lock-in. But also consider: your internal tool has the same risk if the maintainer leaves.
Should we start with build and buy later, or vice versa?
Buy first, build only if necessary. It's easier to migrate from a bought solution to custom than to migrate from messy custom scripts to a real solution. Buying gives you immediate value while you evaluate whether custom is needed.