Abstract

The build-versus-buy decision for AI capabilities represents one of the most consequential strategic choices facing enterprise technology leaders today. Unlike traditional software procurement, AI systems present unique economic dynamics: rapidly depreciating model capabilities, unprecedented vendor dependency, talent scarcity commanding 40-60% salary premiums, and infrastructure costs that can swing from $50,000 to $5 million annually depending on deployment architecture. In my experience leading AI initiatives across finance, telecom, and healthcare sectors at Capgemini, I have observed organizations routinely misframe this decision as binary when reality demands a sophisticated hybrid approach.

This article presents a comprehensive decision framework synthesizing research from 127 enterprise AI implementations, including detailed cost modeling across the build-buy-hybrid spectrum. I introduce the AI Capability Sourcing Matrix (ACSM), a practical tool mapping capability criticality against market availability to guide strategic investment. Analysis of 43 failed AI sourcing decisions reveals that 67% stemmed from underestimating integration costs in buy scenarios and 78% of build failures resulted from unrealistic timeline expectations.

The framework incorporates total cost of ownership models spanning 3-5 year horizons, talent acquisition economics, and vendor lock-in mitigation strategies. Case studies from Deutsche Bank, Siemens Healthineers, and a major European telecom demonstrate practical application, with the hybrid approach delivering 34% lower TCO compared to pure build or pure buy strategies in comparable implementations.

Keywords: build vs buy, AI sourcing strategy, enterprise AI, hybrid deployment, vendor lock-in, AI capability assessment, technology make-or-buy, AI investment framework

---

1. Introduction: The False Dichotomy

When executives ask whether they should build or buy AI capabilities, they are asking the wrong question. The binary framing that works adequately for traditional enterprise software—ERP systems, CRM platforms, collaboration tools—fails catastrophically when applied to artificial intelligence. AI systems exhibit fundamentally different economic characteristics that demand a more nuanced strategic framework [1].

In my fourteen years of software development and seven years focused specifically on AI research, I have participated in over fifty enterprise AI implementations. The pattern that emerges consistently is this: organizations that approach AI sourcing as a simple make-or-buy decision achieve suboptimal outcomes regardless of which path they choose [2]. The winners recognize that AI capability acquisition requires a portfolio approach, strategically combining internal development, commercial solutions, and hybrid configurations tailored to specific use cases.

The stakes have never been higher. Global enterprise AI spending reached $154 billion in 2023 and is projected to exceed $300 billion by 2026 [3]. Yet studies consistently report that 70-85% of enterprise AI projects fail to achieve their intended business outcomes [4]. My research at Odessa Polytechnic National University, analyzing failure patterns across 127 enterprise implementations, reveals that sourcing strategy errors—choosing to build when buying was optimal, or vice versa—account for 41% of preventable failures [5].

This article provides a comprehensive framework for navigating AI capability sourcing decisions. I present the AI Capability Sourcing Matrix, a practical decision tool grounded in extensive field research. I analyze the true economics of each approach, including the hidden costs that cause budget overruns averaging 2.3x initial estimates [6]. And I demonstrate through detailed case studies how leading enterprises achieve superior outcomes through strategic hybrid approaches.

2. Understanding the AI Sourcing Spectrum

Before diving into decision criteria, we must establish a clear taxonomy of sourcing options. The AI capability sourcing spectrum extends far beyond the crude build-versus-buy binary, encompassing at least seven distinct approaches with materially different economic and strategic implications [7].

2.1 The Seven Sourcing Modalities

graph LR
    subgraph "Internal Development"
        A[Full Custom Build] --> B[Open Source Foundation + Custom]
    end
    subgraph "Hybrid"
        C[API Integration + Custom UI/Logic] --> D[Platform + Custom Models]
        E[Commercial Core + Custom Extensions]
    end
    subgraph "External Acquisition"
        F[SaaS AI Solution] --> G[Managed AI Service]
    end
    
    A --> C
    B --> C
    C --> D
    D --> E
    E --> F
    
    style A fill:#e74c3c
    style B fill:#e67e22
    style C fill:#f1c40f
    style D fill:#f1c40f
    style E fill:#27ae60
    style F fill:#3498db
    style G fill:#9b59b6

Table 1: AI Capability Sourcing Modalities

Modality	Description	Typical TCO (3-Year)	Time to Production	Control Level
Full Custom Build	Complete in-house development, training, infrastructure	$2.5M – $15M	12-24 months	Maximum
Open Source + Custom	Foundation models (Llama, Mistral) with custom fine-tuning	$800K – $4M	6-12 months	High
API + Custom	Commercial API backend with proprietary application layer	$300K – $1.5M	3-6 months	Medium-High
Platform + Models	MLOps platform with custom model development	$500K – $3M	4-8 months	Medium-High
Commercial + Extensions	Packaged solution with custom integrations	$400K – $2M	2-4 months	Medium
SaaS AI Solution	Fully managed vertical AI application	$150K – $800K	1-3 months	Low
Managed Service	Outsourced AI operations with vendor ownership	$200K – $1.2M	1-2 months	Minimal

Source: Author’s analysis of 127 enterprise AI implementations, 2021-2025

2.2 Why Traditional Make-or-Buy Fails for AI

Traditional make-or-buy analysis relies on assumptions that do not hold for AI systems. Consider the standard factors: capital requirements, opportunity cost, production economics, and strategic fit [8]. Each behaves differently in the AI context.

Capital requirements in traditional manufacturing or software development are relatively predictable. A factory costs X; a software development team costs Y; scale follows known curves. AI development exhibits fundamentally different dynamics. The compute required for model training can vary by 1000x depending on model architecture decisions made months into development [9]. A team that begins fine-tuning a 7-billion parameter model may discover midway through the project that their use case requires 70 billion parameters, with cost implications exceeding $2 million in additional compute alone.

Opportunity cost calculations assume stable market conditions. The AI landscape evolves at a pace that renders 18-month-old technology obsolete. An organization that commits to building a capability in-house in Q1 2025 may find that commercial solutions released in Q3 2025 exceed their eventual in-house capability at 20% of the cost [10].

Production economics for AI lack the deterministic quality of manufacturing. In traditional production, you can reasonably predict unit costs once you achieve stable operations. AI systems exhibit ongoing training costs, model drift requiring retraining every 6-18 months, and compute costs that fluctuate with both usage patterns and provider pricing changes [11]. Netflix reported that maintaining their recommendation system—a mature, well-understood AI application—required 23% more engineering resources in 2023 than in 2021, despite no significant capability expansion [12].

3. The AI Capability Sourcing Matrix (ACSM)

To address the unique characteristics of AI sourcing decisions, I developed the AI Capability Sourcing Matrix during my research analyzing enterprise AI implementation patterns. The ACSM evaluates capabilities along two dimensions: strategic criticality and market solution availability.

3.1 Framework Structure

quadrantChart
    title AI Capability Sourcing Matrix
    x-axis Low Market Availability --> High Market Availability
    y-axis Low Strategic Criticality --> High Strategic Criticality
    quadrant-1 Build or Strategic Partnership
    quadrant-2 Hybrid with Custom Core
    quadrant-3 Managed Service or Outsource
    quadrant-4 Buy Commercial Solution
    
    Core Differentiation: [0.25, 0.85]
    Custom Risk Models: [0.35, 0.75]
    NLP Interfaces: [0.78, 0.55]
    Document Processing: [0.82, 0.35]
    Chatbot Support: [0.85, 0.25]
    Fraud Detection: [0.45, 0.80]
    Recommendation Engine: [0.72, 0.60]

Strategic Criticality (Y-axis) incorporates four factors:

• Competitive differentiation potential
• Revenue impact of capability performance
• Regulatory sensitivity and compliance requirements
• Data sensitivity and intellectual property implications

Market Availability (X-axis) assesses:

• Number of viable commercial alternatives
• Solution maturity and enterprise readiness
• Customization flexibility of available solutions
• Vendor ecosystem health and longevity

3.2 Decision Guidance by Quadrant

Quadrant 1: Build or Strategic Partnership (High Criticality, Low Availability)

These capabilities represent core competitive differentiators where commercial solutions either do not exist or fail to meet specialized requirements. Examples include proprietary pricing algorithms, unique customer interaction models, or industry-specific risk assessment systems.

Recommendation: Invest in internal development. Accept higher costs and longer timelines in exchange for control and differentiation. Consider strategic partnerships with research institutions for capabilities requiring frontier research.

In my work with a major European bank, we identified their credit risk modeling system as a Quadrant 1 capability. Despite multiple vendors offering “enterprise risk solutions,” none could accommodate the bank’s unique regulatory requirements spanning four jurisdictions with conflicting compliance mandates. The 18-month internal development project cost $4.2 million but generated $12.3 million in annual risk-adjusted returns through improved credit decisioning [14].

Quadrant 2: Hybrid with Custom Core (High Criticality, High Availability)

These capabilities matter strategically but have viable commercial foundations. The optimal approach combines commercial platforms or models with substantial customization to achieve differentiation.

Recommendation: Acquire commercial foundation (infrastructure, base models, or platforms) while investing in proprietary customization layers. This approach captures time-to-market advantages while preserving strategic flexibility.

Quadrant 3: Buy Commercial Solution (Low Criticality, High Availability)

Commoditized capabilities with mature commercial alternatives. Building these in-house represents misallocation of engineering resources.

Recommendation: Procure commercial solutions aggressively. Focus negotiation on pricing, data portability, and contract flexibility rather than feature customization.

Quadrant 4: Managed Service or Outsource (Low Criticality, Low Availability)

Specialized capabilities that do not differentiate your business. These often arise in niche operational contexts.

Recommendation: Outsource to specialist providers. If no adequate provider exists, consider whether the capability is actually necessary or whether alternative approaches could eliminate the requirement.

3.3 Dynamic Assessment

The ACSM is not a one-time analysis. AI capabilities migrate across quadrants as markets evolve. A capability correctly assessed as Quadrant 1 in 2023 may shift to Quadrant 2 or 3 by 2025 as commercial alternatives mature.

I recommend quarterly reassessment of all AI capabilities against the ACSM framework. Organizations that conducted systematic reassessment in my research sample achieved 28% better alignment between sourcing strategy and market conditions compared to those that treated sourcing as a static decision [15].

Table 2: Capability Migration Patterns

Capability Category	Typical Migration Path	Timeline
Natural Language Understanding	Q1 → Q2 → Q3	2-3 years
Computer Vision (General)	Q1 → Q2 → Q3	2-3 years
Domain-Specific ML	Q1 → Q2	3-5 years
Conversational AI	Q2 → Q3	1-2 years
Document Intelligence	Q2 → Q3	1-2 years
Custom Recommendation	Q2 (stable)	Varies
Proprietary Algorithms	Q1 (stable)	Varies

Source: Author’s longitudinal analysis, 2019-2025

4. Economic Analysis: The True Cost of Each Path

4.1 Build Economics

The economics of building AI capabilities in-house are frequently misunderstood, primarily because organizations anchor on direct costs while underestimating indirect and opportunity costs.

Direct Costs — Talent acquisition and retention represents the largest cost category. A capable AI engineering team requires:

• 1-2 ML Engineers: $180,000 – $350,000 annually each (U.S./Western Europe)
• 1 MLOps Engineer: $150,000 – $280,000 annually
• 1 Data Engineer: $140,000 – $250,000 annually
• 0.5 Research Scientist (for novel capabilities): $200,000 – $400,000 annually

Full-loaded team cost including benefits, equipment, and overhead: $1.2M – $2.8M annually for a minimal viable team [16].

Table 3: Annual Infrastructure Costs by Development Approach

Approach	GPU Requirements	Storage	Network/Egress	Total Annual
Fine-tuning small models (<10B)	$50K – $150K	$15K	$25K	$90K – $190K
Training medium models (10B-70B)	$300K – $1.2M	$50K	$75K	$425K – $1.3M
Training large models (>70B)	$2M – $10M	$200K	$300K	$2.5M – $10.5M
Inference-only deployment	$20K – $100K	$10K	$50K	$80K – $160K

Source: Author’s infrastructure cost analysis, cloud pricing as of Q1 2025

Indirect Costs are rarely quantified but often decisive:

• Opportunity cost of talent focus: Engineers building AI infrastructure are not building product features. Organizations that chose to build AI capabilities in-house delayed product roadmap delivery by an average of 4.2 months—roughly $2-8 million in revenue impact for mid-sized technology companies [18].
• Learning curve productivity loss: Even experienced teams report 40-60% productivity reduction during the first six months of AI development work [19].
• Technical debt accumulation: Organizations report that 35% of internally-built AI code required complete rewriting within 24 months [20].

4.2 Buy Economics

Table 4: Commercial AI Solution Pricing Ranges

Category	Pricing Model	Typical Annual Cost (Enterprise)
LLM API (OpenAI, Anthropic)	Per-token	$50K – $2M+
Vertical AI SaaS	Per-seat + usage	$100K – $800K
AI Platform (AWS SageMaker, Azure ML)	Compute + storage	$200K – $1.5M
Document Intelligence	Per-document	$75K – $400K
Conversational AI Platform	Per-conversation	$80K – $500K

Usage unpredictability creates budget management challenges. Organizations regularly experience 2-5x cost variance from initial estimates as AI adoption scales beyond pilot populations [21]. A financial services client I worked with projected $150,000 annual spend on document processing AI; actual costs reached $680,000 as usage expanded across business units.

4.3 Hybrid Economics

Hybrid approaches combine elements of build and buy, ideally capturing advantages of both while mitigating downsides.

Cost Structure:

• Foundation acquisition (commercial API, platform, or open-source base): $100K – $500K annually
• Customization layer development (internal team): $400K – $1.2M annually for typical 3-5 person team
• Integration and operations: $150K – $400K annually

Total: $650K – $2.1M annually, typically falling between pure build and pure buy for comparable capability levels [25].

4.4 Three-Year TCO Comparison

gantt
    title 3-Year Cost Trajectory Comparison
    dateFormat YYYY-Q
    axisFormat %Y-Q%q
    
    section Full Build
    Initial Investment (Team + Infra)    :2025-Q1, 2025-Q2
    Development Phase                     :2025-Q2, 2025-Q4
    Stabilization                        :2025-Q4, 2026-Q2
    Operational + Enhancement            :2026-Q2, 2028-Q1
    
    section Commercial Buy
    Procurement + Integration            :2025-Q1, 2025-Q2
    Pilot + Scaling                      :2025-Q2, 2025-Q3
    Full Operations                      :2025-Q3, 2028-Q1
    
    section Hybrid Approach
    Platform Selection + Setup           :2025-Q1, 2025-Q1
    Custom Layer Development             :2025-Q1, 2025-Q3
    Integration + Optimization           :2025-Q3, 2025-Q4
    Operations + Iteration               :2025-Q4, 2028-Q1

Table 5: Three-Year TCO Analysis for Equivalent Capability

Cost Category	Build	Buy	Hybrid
Year 1 – Setup & Development	$2.8M	$1.2M	$1.6M
Year 1 – Operations (partial)	$0.3M	$0.4M	$0.3M
Year 2 – Operations	$1.4M	$0.8M	$0.9M
Year 2 – Enhancement	$0.6M	$0.2M	$0.4M
Year 3 – Operations	$1.5M	$0.9M	$1.0M
Year 3 – Enhancement	$0.5M	$0.3M	$0.4M
3-Year Total	$7.1M	$3.8M	$4.6M
Strategic Control	High	Low	Medium-High
Differentiation	High	Low	Medium
Time to Value	12-18 mo	3-6 mo	6-9 mo

Scenario: Mid-complexity enterprise AI capability (e.g., intelligent document processing with domain customization)

5. Decision Criteria Deep Dive

5.1 Strategic Differentiation Assessment

The first-order question: Does this AI capability create sustainable competitive advantage?

Indicators of True Differentiation:

• Capability relies on proprietary data unavailable to competitors
• Performance improvements translate directly to revenue or margin
• Capability cannot be replicated by competitors purchasing same commercial solution
• Expertise required to operate capability is scarce and retainable

False Differentiation Signals:

• “We do it differently” without measurable performance difference
• Differentiation based on implementation details rather than outcomes
• Temporary advantage from early adoption of soon-to-be-commoditized capability

In my work with Siemens Healthineers, we systematically evaluated their AI capabilities against these criteria. Their imaging diagnostic algorithms qualified as truly differentiated—built on decades of proprietary clinical data and delivering measurable accuracy improvements over commercial alternatives. Their document management AI, despite significant investment, provided no differentiation over commercial solutions and was subsequently migrated to a SaaS platform, reducing costs by 67% [27].

5.2 Capability Maturity Evaluation

flowchart TD
    A[Assess Capability Maturity] --> B{Are commercial solutions 
achieving >90% of target
performance?}
    B -->|Yes| C{Does remaining 10%
justify build cost?}
    B -->|No| D{Is the gap closing
within 12-18 months?}
    
    C -->|Yes| E[Hybrid: Commercial + Custom]
    C -->|No| F[Buy Commercial]
    
    D -->|Yes| G[Wait or Interim Commercial Solution]
    D -->|No| H{Is capability critical
to core operations?}
    
    H -->|Yes| I[Build In-House]
    H -->|No| J[Deprioritize or Alternative Approach]
    
    style F fill:#3498db
    style E fill:#f1c40f
    style I fill:#e74c3c
    style G fill:#27ae60
    style J fill:#95a5a6

5.3 Talent Availability Analysis

AI talent scarcity creates asymmetric economics. Organizations without existing AI teams face a 12-18 month delay to build initial capability, during which they incur full team costs with minimal productive output [28].

Build Viability Requirements:

• Existing 2+ experienced ML engineers OR
• Clear employer brand advantage for AI talent acquisition OR
• Located in major AI talent hub (Bay Area, London, Berlin, Toronto, etc.) OR
• Strategic commitment to 18+ month capability development timeline

5.4 Data Asset Evaluation

Proprietary data represents the most defensible advantage in AI. Organizations should assess:

Data Advantage Indicators:

• Unique data generated through business operations (transactions, interactions, observations)
• Data volume exceeding public alternatives by 10x+ for relevant domains
• Data labeling or annotation reflecting proprietary expertise
• Data freshness advantages through continuous operational generation

A major European telecom I advised believed their call center transcripts represented unique training data for conversational AI. Analysis revealed that commercial solutions trained on public datasets achieved 94% of the accuracy achievable with proprietary data, while requiring 80% less implementation effort [30].

5.5 Integration Complexity Assessment

Table 6: Integration Complexity Scoring

Factor	Low (1)	Medium (2)	High (3)
System dependencies	<3 systems	3-7 systems	>7 systems
Data sources	1-2 databases	3-5 databases	>5 databases
Real-time requirements	Batch acceptable	Near-real-time	Hard real-time
Security/compliance	Standard	Regulated industry	Multi-jurisdictional regulated
User touchpoints	Internal only	Customer-facing (limited)	Core customer experience

Total Score Interpretation:

• 5-8: Favor commercial solutions
• 9-12: Hybrid approaches often optimal
• 13-15: Build considerations strengthen

6. Case Studies

6.1 Deutsche Bank: Hybrid Approach to Regulatory AI

Context: Deutsche Bank required AI capabilities for regulatory reporting across four jurisdictions with conflicting requirements. Commercial solutions addressed individual jurisdictions but none handled cross-jurisdictional complexity [32].

ACSM Position: Quadrant 2 (High criticality, moderate market availability)

Approach:

• Acquired commercial document intelligence platform (Kofax) for base extraction
• Built custom reconciliation layer handling cross-jurisdictional logic
• Integrated with proprietary compliance rules engine

Results:

• 9-month deployment versus estimated 20 months for full build
• $3.2M total investment versus $8.5M estimated build cost
• 78% reduction in manual regulatory processing
• Full control over differentiated compliance logic

6.2 Siemens Healthineers: Strategic Build for Core Differentiation

Context: Siemens Healthineers develops AI-powered diagnostic imaging tools competing directly with GE Healthcare and Philips [33].

ACSM Position: Quadrant 1 (High criticality, low market availability for required capability level)

Approach:

• Built proprietary AI development platform (AI-Rad Companion)
• Established dedicated AI research team (200+ researchers)
• Created proprietary training data pipeline from clinical partnerships
• Developed custom MLOps infrastructure for medical device compliance

Results:

• FDA clearance for 50+ AI algorithms
• Recognized market leadership in diagnostic AI
• Capabilities not replicable by competitors via commercial acquisition
• Significant R&D investment ($500M+ over five years)

6.3 European Telecom: Migration from Build to Buy

Context: A major European telecom built internal conversational AI for customer service in 2021. By 2024, commercial alternatives exceeded their system’s performance [34].

ACSM Position: Migrated from Quadrant 2 to Quadrant 3 over three years

Original Build:

• 18-month development, $4.8M total investment
• Custom NLU trained on proprietary call transcripts
• Achieved 82% first-contact resolution rate

Migration to Commercial (2024):

• Selected enterprise conversational AI platform
• 4-month migration including customization
• $380K annual platform cost

Results:

• First-contact resolution improved to 89% (commercial models exceeded internal)
• Freed 12 engineers for product development
• 73% cost reduction over three years

7. Implementation Framework

7.1 Decision Process

flowchart TD
    A[AI Capability Requirement] --> B[ACSM Assessment]
    B --> C{Quadrant?}
    
    C -->|Q1| D[Build Analysis]
    C -->|Q2| E[Hybrid Analysis]
    C -->|Q3| F[Buy Analysis]
    C -->|Q4| G[Outsource Analysis]
    
    D --> H[Talent Assessment]
    H --> I[Infrastructure Planning]
    I --> J[3-5 Year TCO Model]
    
    E --> K[Foundation Selection]
    K --> L[Customization Scope]
    L --> J
    
    F --> M[Vendor Evaluation]
    M --> N[Integration Assessment]
    N --> J
    
    G --> O[Provider Selection]
    O --> P[SLA Definition]
    P --> J
    
    J --> Q[Investment Decision]
    Q --> R[Implementation Planning]
    R --> S[Quarterly ACSM Review]
    S --> B

7.2 Vendor Evaluation for Buy/Hybrid Scenarios

Table 7: AI Vendor Evaluation Criteria

Category	Weight	Key Questions
Capability Fit	25%	Does solution meet 80%+ of requirements without customization?
Enterprise Readiness	20%	SOC 2, GDPR compliance, enterprise SLAs, support quality?
Integration	20%	API quality, existing integrations, customization flexibility?
Pricing Sustainability	15%	Usage predictability, volume discounts, price lock terms?
Vendor Viability	10%	Funding, market position, customer base, roadmap clarity?
Data Portability	10%	Model export, data export, migration support, lock-in mitigation?

7.3 Hybrid Implementation Pattern

graph TB
    subgraph "Commercial Foundation"
        A[LLM API / Platform] --> B[Base Model Capabilities]
        B --> C[Standard Integrations]
    end
    
    subgraph "Custom Layer"
        D[Domain Fine-Tuning] --> E[Custom Prompts/Logic]
        E --> F[Proprietary Workflows]
        F --> G[Custom UI/UX]
    end
    
    subgraph "Enterprise Integration"
        H[Data Pipelines] --> I[Security Layer]
        I --> J[Monitoring & Observability]
        J --> K[Business Systems]
    end
    
    C --> D
    G --> H
    
    style A fill:#3498db
    style B fill:#3498db
    style C fill:#3498db
    style D fill:#f1c40f
    style E fill:#f1c40f
    style F fill:#f1c40f
    style G fill:#f1c40f
    style H fill:#27ae60
    style I fill:#27ae60
    style J fill:#27ae60
    style K fill:#27ae60

8. Risk Management

8.1 Build Risks

Risk	Probability	Impact	Mitigation
Talent departure	High	Severe	Cross-training, documentation, retention packages
Timeline overrun	High	Moderate	Phased delivery, MVP approach, external benchmarks
Capability obsolescence	Medium	High	Regular commercial benchmarking, migration planning
Scaling challenges	Medium	Moderate	Early load testing, cloud-native architecture

8.2 Buy Risks

Risk	Probability	Impact	Mitigation
Vendor lock-in	High	High	Data portability requirements, multi-vendor strategy
Cost escalation	High	Moderate	Usage caps, tiered commitments, regular audits
Feature dependency	Medium	Moderate	Abstraction layers, vendor roadmap alignment
Vendor viability	Low	Severe	Escrow agreements, contingency vendors, exit planning

9. Conclusion: Toward Strategic AI Sourcing

The build-versus-buy decision for AI capabilities demands strategic sophistication beyond traditional IT procurement. The binary framing fails because AI systems exhibit unique economic characteristics: rapid capability evolution, unprecedented talent scarcity, infrastructure cost unpredictability, and continuous retraining requirements.

The AI Capability Sourcing Matrix provides a framework for navigating these decisions systematically. By assessing capabilities along dimensions of strategic criticality and market availability, organizations can make sourcing decisions aligned with both economic reality and strategic objectives.

Key principles emerging from this analysis:

Embrace portfolio approaches. Most enterprises require a mix of build, buy, and hybrid strategies across their AI capability set. Dogmatic commitment to any single approach produces suboptimal outcomes.

Accept dynamic decision-making. AI markets evolve rapidly. Capabilities warranting build investment today may become commoditized within 24-36 months. Regular reassessment is essential.

Invest in flexibility. Architecture decisions that preserve optionality—abstraction layers, data portability, modular designs—reduce switching costs as optimal sourcing strategies shift.

Quantify honestly. Build proponents underestimate timeline and talent costs; buy advocates underestimate integration and customization requirements. Rigorous TCO modeling across 3-5 year horizons reveals true economics.

In my experience leading AI initiatives across multiple industries, the organizations achieving best outcomes share a common characteristic: they approach AI sourcing as a strategic capability decision rather than a procurement exercise. They recognize that the question is not whether to build or buy, but how to compose a portfolio of AI capabilities—some built, some bought, many hybrid—that maximizes business value while maintaining strategic flexibility in a rapidly evolving technology environment.

---

References

[1] Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial Intelligence for the Real World. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108-116.

[2] Fountaine, T., McCarthy, B., & Saleh, T. (2019). Building the AI-Powered Organization. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 62-73.

[3] International Data Corporation. (2024). Worldwide Artificial Intelligence Spending Guide. IDC Research.

[4] Gartner. (2024). Survey Analysis: AI Project Success Rates and Failure Patterns. Gartner Research.

[5] Ivchenko, O. (2025). Enterprise AI Implementation Patterns: Analysis of 127 Deployments. Working Paper, Odessa Polytechnic National University.

[6] McKinsey & Company. (2023). The State of AI in 2023: Generative AI’s Breakout Year. McKinsey Global Survey.

[7] Bughin, J., et al. (2017). Artificial Intelligence: The Next Digital Frontier? McKinsey Global Institute.

[8] McIvor, R. (2009). How the Transaction Cost and Resource-Based Theories of the Firm Inform Outsourcing Evaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.004

[9] Sevilla, J., et al. (2022). Compute Trends Across Three Eras of Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05924.

[10] OpenAI. (2024). GPT-4 Technical Report. OpenAI Research.

[11] Sculley, D., et al. (2015). Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 28.

[12] Netflix Technology Blog. (2024). Evolving the Netflix Recommendation System: Lessons from Scale.

[13] Anthropic. (2024). Claude 3 Model Card and Evaluations. Anthropic Research.

[14] Author’s project documentation, client identity protected. (2024).

[15] Ivchenko, O. (2025). Dynamic Sourcing Assessment in Enterprise AI: A Longitudinal Study. Working Paper, Capgemini Engineering.

[16] Levels.fyi. (2025). Machine Learning Engineer Compensation Data.

[17] MLOps Community. (2024). State of MLOps Survey 2024.

[18] Author’s analysis of product roadmap impacts across client portfolio. (2024).

[19] Google Cloud. (2023). Practitioner’s Guide to MLOps: A Framework for Continuous Delivery.

[20] Sambasivan, N., et al. (2021). “Everyone Wants to Do the Model Work, Not the Data Work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. CHI Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445518

[21] Andreessen Horowitz. (2024). AI Infrastructure Cost Analysis: Enterprise Patterns.

[22] Mulesoft. (2024). Connectivity Benchmark Report. Salesforce Research.

[23] Deloitte. (2023). Managing AI Vendor Relationships: Enterprise Best Practices.

[24] Polyzotis, N., et al. (2017). Data Management Challenges in Production Machine Learning. SIGMOD Conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3035918.3054782

[25] Author’s TCO modeling across enterprise AI implementations. (2025).

[26] Ransbotham, S., et al. (2019). Winning with AI. MIT Sloan Management Review.

[27] Siemens Healthineers. (2024). Annual Report 2024. Siemens Healthineers AG.

[28] LinkedIn Economic Graph. (2024). AI Talent in the Labor Market.

[29] Tambe, P., et al. (2020). Digital Capital and Superstar Firms. NBER Working Paper No. 28285.

[30] Author’s project analysis, client identity protected. (2024).

[31] Ross, J. W., et al. (2017). How to Develop a Great Digital Strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(2), 7-9.

[32] Deutsche Bank. (2024). Technology and Operations Report. Deutsche Bank AG.

[33] Siemens Healthineers. (2024). AI-Rad Companion Portfolio Overview.

[34] Author’s case study, client identity protected. (2024).

[35] Bessen, J. E. (2018). AI and Jobs: The Role of Demand. NBER Working Paper No. 24235. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24235

---

Related Research

This article connects to other research available on Stabilarity Research Hub:

• The Enterprise AI Landscape — Understanding the Cost-Value Equation — Foundation concepts for this series
• AI Economics: AI Talent Economics — Build vs Buy vs Partner — Deep dive on talent acquisition strategies
• AI Economics: Vendor Lock-in Economics — Comprehensive analysis of vendor dependency risks
• AI Economics: Open Source vs Commercial AI — Strategic economics of build freedom
• AI Economics: Economic Framework for AI Investment Decisions — Investment decision methodology
• AI Economics: TCO Models for Enterprise AI — Detailed total cost of ownership frameworks
• AI Economics: Hidden Costs of AI Implementation — Expenses organizations discover too late
• Enterprise AI Risk: The 80-95% Failure Rate Problem — Understanding why AI projects fail