Build or Buy in 2025

We know “build vs. buy” is an important decision for companies with large field service teams in 2025. While SaaS can remain a viable choice for standard needs, many organizations are reconsidering custom software when workflows are core to their competitive edge, off-the-shelf tools fall short, or long-term flexibility matters more than speed.

Build vs. Buy in 2025 

For years, the dominant advice in enterprise tech circles has been: don’t build, buy. The rise of cloud software and SaaS platforms made it easier than ever to adopt tools quickly, stay current, and avoid the risks of long development cycles. 

But recently, companies, especially those with large field or mobile workforces, are starting to reevaluate that assumption. 

At Enterbridge, we work with mid-size and enterprise companies across field service, construction, energy, and manufacturing and we’ve noticed a shift: businesses that previously defaulted to SaaS are now giving serious thought to custom software, not because they want to rebuild everything from scratch, but because the SaaS model doesn’t always fit their operational realities. 

Here’s what we’re seeing, and how to know whether buying or building is the smarter move for your team. 

 Is the Process You’re Automating a Competitive Advantage?

One of the clearest signals that building might be worth exploring is when the workflow in question is core to your company’s value. 

If the function is a commodity, like payroll or accounting, buying best-in-class software is a no-brainer. You get robust features, constant updates, and lower long-term maintenance costs. 

But if the process is how your company wins—how you dispatch field crews, how you deliver service, how you track job performance—then it’s worth taking a closer look at what is working and where you might need help. You need to evaluate whether forcing your operations into someone else’s mold will cost you efficiency or differentiation. SaaS platforms are designed for scale and generalization. They’re not built around your process. 

Sometimes that works just fine. Other times, it introduces real inefficiencies—like dispatching delays caused by rigid scheduling logic, duplicate data entry because the system doesn’t talk to your internal tools, or field techs being forced to follow workflows that don’t reflect how jobs actually get done on the ground. Over time, these mismatches lead to slower response times, frustrated employees, and missed opportunities to improve productivity or customer satisfaction.  

One of our clients in industrial services tried to bend their dispatch workflow to fit an off-the-shelf tool. The result? Lost time, frustrated field teams, and operational workarounds. Eventually, they layered in a lightweight custom component to handle their unique edge cases, and it made all the difference.  

What Resources Do You Actually Have?

Even if a custom solution sounds ideal, you still need to evaluate what you’re realistically equipped to handle. 

Do you have internal software developers? Product managers? QA testers? If not, building from scratch with your own team is probably off the table. And if your team is already stretched thin maintaining legacy systems, layering in a new build effort could create more risk than reward. 

But that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re locked into buying. 

For example: 
Let’s say you’re a regional construction company with 80 field crews and no in-house developers. You might still opt to build a custom scheduling or dispatching tool if your existing SaaS options can’t account for the way you structure teams by trade, equipment needs, or job complexity. In that case, a trusted development partner (like Enterbridge) can supplement your internal capability and bring that custom build within reach. 

On the other hand, buying makes a lot of sense when your need is generic and already well-served by mature SaaS platforms. For example, if you're looking for a system to handle payroll, time tracking, or routine inspection checklists that don’t vary much from job to job—buying is faster, easier to manage, and often more cost-effective. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

You can also take a hybrid approach—buy where it makes sense, and build where your processes are too critical or unique to compromise. We’ve seen clients buy an off-the-shelf asset management system, for instance, but then build a custom mobile interface for field crews that streamlines data capture in ways no third-party platform allowed. 

The key is to be honest about your internal capabilities and strategic about where you augment them. Build versus buy doesn’t have to be all or nothing. 

Cost is also a factor when considering your resources, but that’s a topic for another day. 

 Do You Need Control Over the Roadmap?

When you buy off-the-shelf software, you’re buying into someone else’s vision. That can be a good thing—especially if that vendor is deeply invested in your industry and actively evolving the product based on feedback from companies like yours. 

But it also means you’re giving up control. 

You can’t choose what gets prioritized, what gets delayed, or how fast updates come. If your team is constantly putting in support tickets, requesting features that don’t get built, or working around limitations that slow your crews down—you’re paying for a product that’s holding you back. 

Let’s say your field teams rely on a very specific job flow: maybe certain steps need supervisor sign-off before others can be assigned, or perhaps you dispatch jobs based on equipment availability rather than geography. A vendor might promise those features are “on the roadmap,” but that could mean 12 months—or never. In the meantime, you’re duct-taping together workarounds or spinning up shadow systems in spreadsheets. 

When buying works well: 

• Your needs align closely with the platform’s core use cases. 

• You’re okay adapting your workflows to the product’s capabilities. 

• The vendor actively invests in your space and evolves the product to match real-world field challenges. 

When building gives you an advantage: 

• Your process is a key differentiator or efficiency driver. 

• You can’t afford to wait on someone else’s roadmap. 

• You want to directly influence and iterate on functionality to support how your business actually works. 

For example, a national utility contractor we worked with needed tight integration between field data capture and invoicing. The SaaS solution they were using didn’t expose the necessary API endpoints and deprioritized financial workflows in favor of general field service features. By building a custom solution, they gained control over how job data flowed from technician to accounting—and eliminated a week-long delay in billing. 

The trade-off? 
With full control comes full responsibility. Building means you have to own product direction, prioritization, and ongoing development. That’s why many clients choose a hybrid path—buy a core platform that handles 80% of their needs, and build around it to extend or customize the last 20% that truly matters. 

The question isn’t just whether you want control—it’s whether you need it to win. 

Final Thought: The Best Choice Aligns With Strategy 

Ultimately, it’s not about build versus buy. It’s about using each approach where it fits best. 

• Buy when the need is standardized, when speed matters most, or when internal capacity is limited. 

• Build when the process is core to how you win, when SaaS can’t meet your needs, or when long-term control and flexibility matter more than upfront speed. 

More and more of our clients are finding that a hybrid strategy works best. Buy what’s proven. Build what makes you different. 

And when you do choose to build, make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, with the right team and a clear focus on value. 

Need help weighing your options? 

Enterbridge helps field service organizations think through buy-vs-build decisions with clear ROI models, technical guidance, and a bias toward what’s best for your business, not ours.