I love the comment about Slack at the end. It doesn't refute your point at all, but I am curious of what other examples readers can think of where internal tools were eventually marketplace offerings, often being spun out into their own company?
DeepSeek is an interesting example, where as I understand it the original models were developed internally to support a quant based hedge fund, then eventually became its own org.
In the industry I work in, there is a company that originated as internal tooling for General Electric, and was eventually spun off into its own software company.
I think there are a few dimensions worth expanding on that feel incomplete to me.
1. For CRMs its worth noting that whether you build or buy (Salesforce for example) you always need to do a lot of customization to make it fit a global sales force - this scales with the complexity of the business - you need to build it out and own it regardless.
2. For certain product verticals (like OPEX cost management solutions, FinOps tooling) at the Enterprise level you are always fighting the companies themselves. Often the buy decision wins because it brings documentation, rollout, and process opinion with it (which is dangerous). Regardless of what tool you have (internal or off the shelf) you need sharp ownership of process and rollout to get your desired outcome.
4. AI changes build/buy decisions massively. It would be worth noting that the level of startup investment to prove build ideas is lower. Additionally, it means newer incumbents will have more disruptive innovation to offer.
I think the AI disruption is happening in some of the smaller tooling purchases. I expect it to roll up market to the platforms as development gets easier. Im seeing this actively in my engagements already. In the FinOps space where i work its causing a lot of people to move away from market leaders. This, however, is confirming your point about - why invest in it if it isn't making you money/customer value (this is true of built or bought)
I wrote an article on this for my company blog page but I appreciate some additional perspectives I haven’t heard before. The onboarding and upskilling the market points were unique. I appreciate those! 😊
Nice read. One question I've always asked as an IT exec: Would this truly enhance our unique value proposition with customers? The closer to value and intellectual prop, the more I felt compelled to build. Not always a hard and fast rule but it was a good barometer check.
It's also very common for this to be an AND statement over OR (vs).
I love the comment about Slack at the end. It doesn't refute your point at all, but I am curious of what other examples readers can think of where internal tools were eventually marketplace offerings, often being spun out into their own company?
DeepSeek is an interesting example, where as I understand it the original models were developed internally to support a quant based hedge fund, then eventually became its own org.
In the industry I work in, there is a company that originated as internal tooling for General Electric, and was eventually spun off into its own software company.
Any others readers can think of?
Really interesting perspective!
I think there are a few dimensions worth expanding on that feel incomplete to me.
1. For CRMs its worth noting that whether you build or buy (Salesforce for example) you always need to do a lot of customization to make it fit a global sales force - this scales with the complexity of the business - you need to build it out and own it regardless.
2. For certain product verticals (like OPEX cost management solutions, FinOps tooling) at the Enterprise level you are always fighting the companies themselves. Often the buy decision wins because it brings documentation, rollout, and process opinion with it (which is dangerous). Regardless of what tool you have (internal or off the shelf) you need sharp ownership of process and rollout to get your desired outcome.
4. AI changes build/buy decisions massively. It would be worth noting that the level of startup investment to prove build ideas is lower. Additionally, it means newer incumbents will have more disruptive innovation to offer.
I totally agree with #1. You are paying a ton and using a ton of human resources to implement a CRM.
I'm not seeing it yet with #4. Even if you do build it, you still have to maintain it.
I think the AI disruption is happening in some of the smaller tooling purchases. I expect it to roll up market to the platforms as development gets easier. Im seeing this actively in my engagements already. In the FinOps space where i work its causing a lot of people to move away from market leaders. This, however, is confirming your point about - why invest in it if it isn't making you money/customer value (this is true of built or bought)
also apologies for the numbering there 🤦
Like it will get really interesting if it ever gets to the ERP and you can use open source code to get there
Haha all good on the numbering
I wrote an article on this for my company blog page but I appreciate some additional perspectives I haven’t heard before. The onboarding and upskilling the market points were unique. I appreciate those! 😊
Nice read. One question I've always asked as an IT exec: Would this truly enhance our unique value proposition with customers? The closer to value and intellectual prop, the more I felt compelled to build. Not always a hard and fast rule but it was a good barometer check.
It's also very common for this to be an AND statement over OR (vs).
So well said!
Why build it if it doesn’t allow you to help the customer (and make more money)?