This article provides a detailed response to: What are the key indicators that suggest a company should pivot from a "Buy" to a "Build" strategy, or vice versa, in response to market changes? For a comprehensive understanding of Build vs. Buy, we also include relevant case studies for further reading and links to Build vs. Buy best practice resources.
TLDR Discover when to pivot from a Buy to a Build strategy (or vice versa) by evaluating Cost, Time to Market, Core Competencies, and Strategic Fit for competitive advantage.
Before we begin, let's review some important management concepts, as they related to this question.
In the fast-paced world of business, companies are often faced with the critical decision of whether to "Buy" or "Build" in response to market changes. This decision can significantly impact a company's Strategic Planning, Operational Excellence, and ultimately, its competitive advantage. The choice between buying (acquiring external solutions or companies) and building (developing solutions or capabilities in-house) is influenced by several key indicators, including cost considerations, time to market, core competencies, and strategic fit.
Cost Considerations and Financial Health
One of the first indicators that suggest a shift in strategy is the cost implication of both options. Companies must evaluate the total cost of ownership (TCO) for building a solution versus the acquisition cost of buying. This includes not only the initial investment but also the long-term costs associated with maintenance, upgrades, and integration. A study by McKinsey & Company highlights the importance of considering indirect costs such as the opportunity cost of diverting resources from core business activities. If the cost of building a solution in-house significantly outweighs the cost of acquisition, and the company has the financial health to support an acquisition, it may be time to pivot towards a "Buy" strategy.
However, financial health plays a crucial role in this decision. Companies with limited cash reserves or those looking to optimize their capital allocation might find building a more cost-effective approach, especially if the solution can be developed incrementally. This approach allows for spreading out expenses over time, as opposed to the substantial upfront investment required in acquisitions.
Moreover, the availability of financing and the company's borrowing capacity can also influence this decision. In periods of low-interest rates, acquiring might seem more attractive due to cheaper financing options. Conversely, in a high-interest environment or during economic downturns, companies might lean towards building, to conserve cash and avoid debt.
Time to Market and Innovation Cycle
The speed at which a company can bring a solution to market is another critical indicator. In industries where technological advancements and innovation cycles are rapid, the time to market can be a deciding factor. A report by Gartner emphasizes that acquiring a company or technology can significantly accelerate a company's ability to offer new products or services, especially in a fast-evolving market. This is particularly relevant for companies operating in the technology, pharmaceutical, and biotech sectors, where being first to market can secure a substantial competitive edge.
Conversely, if the required solution is highly specialized and not available in the market, or if customization of existing solutions is too costly or time-consuming, building in-house might be the faster route. This is especially true for companies with strong R&D capabilities or those in niche markets where off-the-shelf solutions do not meet unique business requirements.
Furthermore, the decision between buying and building also depends on the company's innovation strategy. Companies with a focus on Innovation and Leadership in their industry might prefer to build, to retain control over the innovation process and maintain a competitive advantage through proprietary technology or solutions.
Core Competencies and Strategic Fit
Assessing the company's core competencies is essential when deciding between buying or building. A company should consider whether the solution falls within its area of expertise and if it aligns with the company's Strategic Planning and long-term goals. For instance, if a technology company identifies a need for advanced AI capabilities to enhance its product offerings, but lacks the in-house expertise, buying a company with established AI technology and talent could be more strategic. This not only provides immediate access to the required technology but also integrates new competencies into the company's portfolio.
On the other hand, if developing the solution internally strengthens the company's core competencies or provides a strategic advantage, building might be the preferred option. For example, Amazon's development of its cloud computing service, AWS, leveraged its existing infrastructure and technical expertise, turning an internal capability into a new revenue stream and a significant part of its business model.
Strategic fit is another crucial consideration. The solution, whether bought or built, should align with the company's overall strategy, culture, and operational model. Acquisitions, while offering a quick route to new capabilities, can pose challenges in terms of integration, culture clash, and alignment with long-term strategic objectives. Building, while potentially slower, may offer better alignment with the company's strategic vision and culture, ensuring a smoother integration into existing operations and processes.
In conclusion, the decision to pivot from a "Buy" to a "Build" strategy, or vice versa, is multifaceted, requiring careful consideration of cost, time to market, core competencies, and strategic fit. Companies must thoroughly analyze these indicators, considering both the immediate and long-term implications of their choice, to ensure that their strategy aligns with their overall business objectives and market position.
Best Practices in Build vs. Buy
Here are best practices relevant to Build vs. Buy from the Flevy Marketplace. View all our Build vs. Buy materials here.
Explore all of our best practices in: Build vs. Buy
Build vs. Buy Case Studies
For a practical understanding of Build vs. Buy, take a look at these case studies.
Telecom Infrastructure Outsourcing Strategy
Scenario: The organization is a regional telecom operator facing increased pressure to modernize its infrastructure while managing costs.
Defense Procurement Strategy for Aerospace Components
Scenario: The organization is a major player in the aerospace defense sector, grappling with the decision to make or buy critical components.
Customer Loyalty Program Development in the Cosmetics Industry
Scenario: The organization is a multinational cosmetics enterprise seeking to enhance its competitive edge by establishing a customer loyalty program.
Make or Buy Decision Analysis for a Global Electronics Manufacturer
Scenario: A global electronics manufacturer is grappling with escalating operational costs and supply chain complexities.
Luxury Brand E-commerce Platform Decision
Scenario: A luxury fashion house is grappling with the decision to develop an in-house e-commerce platform or to leverage an existing third-party solution.
Global Supply Chain Optimization Strategy for Industrial Metals Distributor
Scenario: An established industrial metals distributor is facing a critical "make or buy" decision to improve its global supply chain efficiency.
Explore all Flevy Management Case Studies
Related Questions
Here are our additional questions you may be interested in.
Source: Executive Q&A: Build vs. Buy Questions, Flevy Management Insights, 2024
Flevy is the world's largest knowledge base of best practices.
Leverage the Experience of Experts.
Find documents of the same caliber as those used by top-tier consulting firms, like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Deloitte, Accenture.
Download Immediately and Use.
Our PowerPoint presentations, Excel workbooks, and Word documents are completely customizable, including rebrandable.
Save Time, Effort, and Money.
Save yourself and your employees countless hours. Use that time to work on more value-added and fulfilling activities.
