You’d think the age-old “build vs buy” debate would have been settled by now.
The procurement technology landscape is incredibly crowded, with over 450 software solutions competing for attention. Surely someone amongst this vast array of vendors has already built exactly what you need?
Yet here we are, still having this build vs buy conversation in procurement teams around the world.
IT departments continue to believe they can create something better than what billions of dollars in venture capital have produced. And increasingly, they might actually have a point. Though perhaps not for the reasons they think.
The question isn’t whether this debate will disappear—it won’t.
Technology decisions are rarely that straightforward.
The real question is whether we’ve finally reached a turning point where build vs buy for your own procurement tools may be a valid debate again.
The Era When Building Was Complete Madness
Let’s be honest about the recent past.
From roughly 2018 to 2024, suggesting your internal team could build better procurement software than established vendors was rather unrealistic. The claim would be similar to saying you could hand-build a car that would outperform a luxury vehicle.
The technical barriers were enormous.
Creating software that didn’t look outdated required serious user experience expertise. This skill costs considerable money, and even established software firms can struggle. Building something that could actually move with the times required deep technical knowledge.
Most internal IT teams simply don’t have this. Nor do they have the ability to manage offshore software development agencies, even though they think they may have.
During this period, procurement tech vendors threw enormous amounts of money at research and development. They had dedicated teams adding features, improving security, patching vulnerabilities, and making it easier to integrate with other systems.
Your internal IT team, on the other hand? However talented, they were probably juggling dozens of other priorities alongside that procurement project that kept getting bumped to next quarter.
The user interface challenges alone were enough to put most teams off.
Commercial software providers employed entire teams of designers and user experience specialists. They conducted user research, ran A/B tests, and iteratively improved their interfaces based on feedback from thousands of users.
Then there was the security consideration. Procurement systems handle sensitive supplier information, contract details, and financial data. Commercial vendors invest heavily in security certifications, compliance frameworks, and regular penetration testing.
Building this level of security expertise internally represented a massive undertaking.
The business case was straightforward. Why would you spend months or years reinventing the wheel when you could purchase a proven solution and have it running within weeks (if you picked the right one)?
The opportunity cost alone made building seem unwise.
The Game Changer: AI and the No-Code Revolution
Something fundamental has shifted over the past couple of years. The tools available for building custom applications have become genuinely powerful and surprisingly accessible.
AI agents are no longer the stuff of massive development projects that require PhD-level expertise.
Using workflow automation platforms like Make or n8n, teams can create intelligent assistants that handle routine procurement tasks for a fraction of what it used to cost. These aren’t complex coding projects that require computer science degrees. They’re visual workflows that technically minded, often younger procurement professionals can build themselves, after watching a few YouTube tutorials and experimenting a bit.
The beauty of these AI agents lies in their specificity. Rather than trying to build a comprehensive procurement platform, you can create focused tools that handle particular pain points.
An AI agent that monitors contract renewal dates and automatically sends reminders. Another that screens supplier applications against your criteria. A third that monitors email inboxes for purchase order confirmations and summarises these in one dashboard.
Meanwhile, the no-code and low-code revolution has genuinely democratised application development.
Platforms like Replit, Glide, Bubble, and Softr allow users to create sophisticated applications without writing traditional code. What once required a team of developers working for months can now be accomplished by someone with domain expertise and a determined weekend.
This shift is absolutely crucial because it changes who can build these tools. Instead of relying entirely on IT departments who understand technology but may not fully grasp the nuances of procurement workflows, procurement professionals themselves can now create solutions that address their specific pain points.
They know exactly where the current process breaks down, which reports are actually useful, and what information suppliers struggle to provide.
The democratisation of development means that the person who best understands the problem can now be the person who builds the solution.
That’s a fundamental change in how we approach procurement technology.
When Building Actually Makes Sense
Before you rush off to cancel your software subscriptions, let’s be clear: building still isn’t the right answer for most situations. But there are specific scenarios where it’s genuinely worth considering.
Budget constraints are a real challenge
If your organisation genuinely cannot afford commercial solutions, building targeted tools with no-code platforms can provide significant value for minimal investment. A custom supplier onboarding application built in Glide or Softr might cost you a few hundred dollars annually, versus thousands for an enterprise solution.
Your procurement team harbours hidden technical talent
The key phrase here is “procurement team,” not IT team. If you have procurement professionals who are genuinely interested in learning these new tools and have management support to experiment, they can create solutions that perfectly match how your team actually works.
A pilot project to demonstrate value and build a business case
Sometimes the most effective way to convince leadership to invest properly in procurement technology is to show them what’s possible with a homegrown solution. A well-built pilot project can demonstrate return on investment and create momentum for larger investments.
Your requirements are genuinely unique. Some organisations operate in such specific ways that off-the-shelf solutions require extensive customisation anyway. If you’re going to end up building significant functionality regardless, it might make sense to start from scratch.
When You Should Definitely Buy
Here’s the reality check: in the vast majority of situations, buying remains the considerably smarter choice.
Enterprise organisations with complex requirements should almost always buy. If you have centres of excellence, multiple business units, or international operations, commercial solutions offer the robustness and support you need.
The cost of building something that can handle enterprise complexity typically far exceeds the price of purchasing proven software.
Small and medium procurement teams
Teams with resource constraints will benefit enormously from the right out-of-the-box solutions. Your time is better spent on strategic procurement activities than maintaining custom software. Point solutions for contract management, supplier management, or spend analysis can be implemented quickly and provide immediate value.
Procure-to-pay integration requirements
When it comes to P2P, building your own software is particularly challenging. If you need your procurement tools to connect with accounting systems or ERP platforms, commercial solutions have already solved these integration challenges. Building these integrations from scratch is complex and risky.
Compliance and audit requirements favour commercial solutions
Many industries require specific compliance standards and audit trails. Commercial procurement software typically includes these features as standard, along with the documentation that auditors expect to see.
The Broader Context: Why This Debate Persists
The build vs. buy debate endures because it reflects fundamental tensions in how organisations approach technology decision-making.
Some organisations prefer the control and customisation that comes with building internal solutions. They want tools that work exactly as they do, rather than changing their processes to match software limitations.
Others prioritise the reliability, features, and support that come with commercial solutions. They’re willing to adapt their processes somewhat in exchange for proven functionality and professional support when things go wrong.
What’s genuinely changed isn’t that one approach has become universally superior. Instead, the barriers to building have lowered significantly, making it a viable option in specific circumstances for the first time in years. The tools are better, the learning curve is gentler, and the results can be surprisingly sophisticated.
However, this accessibility can be deceptive.
Just because something is easier to build doesn’t mean it’s wise to build it. The true cost of custom software isn’t in the initial development—it’s in the ongoing maintenance, updates, and feature enhancements that keep software useful over time.
The Path Forward
The organisations that will genuinely thrive are those that can honestly assess their capabilities, needs, and constraints.
Sometimes that means embracing the DIY approach with modern tools. More often, it means recognising that smart purchasing remains the most reliable path to procurement technology success.
The build vs buy debate won’t disappear because both approaches have legitimate advantages in specific circumstances. The key is developing the wisdom to know when to build, when to buy, and when to stop debating and start implementing.
In the end, the best procurement technology is the one that gets used consistently, solves real problems, and helps your team deliver better outcomes for the organisation.
Whether you build it or buy it matters far less than whether it works.
