In the quest for effective software solutions, organisations face a critical decision: should they develop their own software or opt for existing alternatives? This choice is particularly significant in the engineering sector, where it can greatly influence efficiency and productivity.
Selecting the right approach necessitates a thorough understanding of organisational needs and available resources. Engineering productivity software often encompasses multiple processes and may require third-party integrations for smooth data transfer and tailored functionality.
Key considerations include the need for bespoke features, potential changes in data collection, and the resources available for software development.
Custom-built software can offer flexibility and ownership, while off-the-shelf solutions provide quicker deployment and lower initial costs. Organisations must carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option to determine the best fit for their unique circumstances.
At the outset of their digital transformation journeys, we frequently encounter companies asking, "What if we build it from scratch?" While the allure of creating tailored software is understandable, it often entails a considerable investment of time and resources, which can divert attention from the core issues it aims to address.
It's essential to recognise that existing technologies may already meet your requirements. Acknowledging this reality can make the goal of digital transformation seem far more attainable.
In this article, we will explore the rationale behind this viewpoint, dispel common misconceptions, and outline key considerations for organisations looking to develop new software or digital products.
One of the primary motivations for engineering teams pursuing DIY software solutions is the desire for a custom approach tailored to their unique engineering processes. Unlike off-the-shelf products, which often offer a generic set of features that may not fully satisfy organisational needs, custom software can be developed to meet exact specifications.
This bespoke approach enables engineering teams to optimise workflows, streamline operations, and enhance productivity by creating tools that integrate seamlessly with their existing systems and methodologies.
Another compelling factor driving the DIY trend is the perception of cost savings compared to purchasing licensed software. Although the initial investment in developing custom software may appear substantial, many organisations believe that the long-term benefits outweigh these upfront costs. This viewpoint is particularly prevalent in industries where licensed software incurs significant recurring fees, making it financially attractive to invest in a custom solution that eliminates ongoing costs and facilitates predictable budgeting.
Moreover, many engineering teams are motivated by the perceived control associated with DIY software. When organisations develop their own solutions, they maintain full oversight over updates, data management, and integration with other systems. This level of control is crucial in ensuring that software evolves in accordance with the organisation's shifting needs and industry standards.
Additionally, having direct control over the software allows teams to respond swiftly to issues, implement necessary changes, and ensure seamless integration with third-party tools, ultimately leading to improved operational efficiency.
Companies pursuing custom-built software typically fall into one of two categories: those new to software acquisition who opt for DIY solutions, often under the misconception that building from scratch is the only viable approach; and those with previous negative experiences with software vendors, usually stemming from inadequate customisation, poor fit with business needs, or insufficient change management.
These issues, rather than the software itself, frequently lead to failed projects or unmet objectives. When implementation is executed thoughtfully—addressing planning, design, and change management—businesses across various sectors have found success with software they initially deemed ineffective.
Ultimately, organisations seek control, security, and tailored solutions in their digital projects, but the question remains: can custom-built software truly fulfill these expectations?
One of the most significant challenges in DIY software development is resource allocation, especially when engineers begin projects as side initiatives, often driven by a genuine desire to improve their designs. Many engineers are not employed specifically as software developers; their main role is to design and enhance physical products. However, their curiosity and technical skills often lead them to experiment with software solutions that could streamline their core tasks. These side projects can grow into valuable tools, sometimes gaining so much traction that they become part of the engineer’s full-time focus.
As these side projects evolve into fully-fledged systems, engineers may find themselves dedicating increasing time to maintaining and refining the software itself—shifting focus away from core product design objectives. Without thorough planning, resource allocation, or a realistic understanding of the demands of software maintenance, these projects can unintentionally drain time, money, and energy, leaving engineers caught between fixing code and delivering product innovation. Over time, these pressures can lead to project delays, budget overruns, and a reduction in organisational productivity as engineers are pulled further from their primary roles and goals.
Another hidden challenge is scope creep, a common issue in custom software projects. As teams develop their solutions, they frequently uncover new features and functionalities that they believe would enhance the product. This can lead to increased complexity, expanding the project's scope beyond the original plan and extending timelines further.
Such unanticipated growth can place additional strain on available resources, resulting in team burnout and potentially jeopardising the project's success. Effective project management and clear communication regarding initial goals are essential to mitigate these risks.
Finally, skill gaps within the team can present a significant obstacle in DIY software development. The specific software development skills required to create a custom solution may not align with the existing expertise of the engineering team, leading to the creation of suboptimal solutions. Some engineers excel at solving their problems, but that does not make them proficient coders with a solid foundation in computing principles necessary for creating efficient, smooth-running, and error-free code.
One hidden danger of DIY software projects is the gradual reliance that can develop within a company. An engineer might create a simple tool to solve a specific problem, and over time, this tool gains traction across teams, becoming embedded in daily workflows. As more people rely on it, the company becomes effectively "locked in" to the custom software, making it challenging to adopt a pre-built solution later on. When the limitations of the custom tool finally come to light, transitioning to a commercially-supported solution turns into a complex migration process—one that is often costly, time-consuming, and disruptive to operations.
This mismatch can hinder the development process and impact the quality of the final product. Organisations must carefully assess their team's capabilities and consider investing in training or hiring specialists to bridge these skill gaps, ensuring the successful delivery of a robust software solution.
When building software from scratch, one primary risk is the significant time commitment required, as developing a full platform can take years compared to the considerably shorter timeline needed to customise an existing solution. Established platforms like MATLAB and SolidWorks offer extensive libraries, specialised packages, and robust community support, all designed to address specific engineering challenges and streamline customisation. These resources save time, enabling teams to concentrate on adding unique features that directly impact product design and development. For instance, rather than building custom simulations from scratch, engineers can utilise MATLAB’s pre-defined packages for targeted analysis, or download specialised CAD modules in SolidWorks to accelerate design work.
In contrast, creating tools entirely from scratch can feel like reinventing the wheel, demanding significant effort and close attention at every stage. Monolith, for example, provides pre-built features specifically for statistical analysis and model-building, backed by years of software development expertise. This expertise, refined through work with clients on real engineering problems in lab settings, offers a valuable alternative to building in-house tools that may ultimately require excessive resources to maintain and improve.
Additionally, continuous improvement becomes challenging when managing a bespoke platform. Unlike off-the-shelf solutions that receive regular updates, security patches, and technical support, custom-built platforms require dedicated teams to address ongoing quality improvements, troubleshoot, and refine the software. Integration with other technologies such as Data exploration tools and automated data inspection tools is also more complex and time-consuming with custom software, necessitating careful planning and development. Existing enterprise software, by contrast, typically includes out-of-the-box integrations that streamline connectivity with other systems.
Finally, building from scratch can overwhelm internal IT resources and amplify the risks of project failure. Custom development demands extensive IT involvement and expertise for project management, operation, and maintenance, often leaving teams stretched thin. Without an established blueprint, the margin for error is high, and companies must budget for unexpected issues and setbacks. Unlike mature platforms that have been tested over time, new software involves navigating a steep learning curve and shouldering the financial risks of any mistakes or adjustments along the way.
One of the primary technical risks associated with DIY software development is the lack of testing and quality assurance. Engineering teams may bypass formal testing stages to expedite the development process, leading to an increased likelihood of bugs or performance issues in the final product. Such oversights can have serious implications, as undetected errors can compromise functionality and user experience.
Research has demonstrated that thorough testing is critical for software reliability; neglecting these stages often results in higher costs in the long run due to the need for post-release fixes and updates.
Another major concern is the potential for security vulnerabilities in custom-built software. Without adherence to industry-standard security protocols, DIY solutions can inadvertently expose sensitive data to breaches and cyberattacks. Many organisations underestimate the importance of embedding robust security measures from the outset, leaving themselves exposed to potential threats. In contrast, off-the-shelf solutions often come with certifications such as ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, SOC-2, and GDPR compliance, enforcing rigorous data controls and security standards. These certifications offer an added layer of protection and reassurance, ensuring that security and data compliance are integrated by design, rather than relying on extensive in-house resources to implement and maintain.
Cybersecurity experts warn that failing to consider security during the early stages of software development can lead to dire consequences, including financial losses and reputational damage due to data breaches.
Finally, scalability issues can emerge when organisations develop their own software solutions. DIY projects may struggle to accommodate increased demand or additional users, which can significantly impact productivity and performance. Custom solutions that are not designed with scalability in mind may result in system slowdowns or crashes during peak usage periods.
This challenge underscores the importance of considering long-term growth and user needs during the initial design phase. To mitigate scalability risks, teams should conduct thorough assessments of their expected growth trajectories and incorporate flexible architectures that can adapt to changing demands.
Ongoing Support Needs: Unlike commercial software with dedicated support teams, DIY solutions require continuous attention from the engineering team.
Upgrades and Compatibility: Keeping software compatible with evolving technology stacks can become a major drain on resources.
Hidden Costs of Downtime: Frequent maintenance or performance issues can lead to costly downtime that impacts overall project timelines.
One significant consideration for organisations developing DIY software is the ongoing support needs. Unlike commercial software solutions, which typically come with dedicated support teams, DIY systems demand continuous attention and resources from the engineering team. This reliance can divert critical personnel from other projects, placing a strain on the team and potentially leading to burnout.
Industry analysts have found that the absence of formal support structures in DIY solutions can result in slower response times to issues, exacerbating operational challenges for organisations relying on these systems.
Another key factor is the challenge of maintaining upgrades and ensuring compatibility with evolving technology stacks. As technology advances rapidly, keeping DIY software aligned with the latest tools, platforms, and standards can become a significant resource drain.
Engineering teams may find themselves dedicating excessive time and effort to address compatibility issues, often at the expense of new feature development or process improvements. Regular updates are crucial to maintaining optimal performance and security; however, the continuous cycle of updates can create a perpetual backlog of tasks that stifles innovation.
Finally, organisations must consider the hidden costs associated with downtime. Frequent maintenance or performance issues in DIY solutions can lead to costly downtime that impacts overall project timelines and productivity.
In sectors where operational efficiency is critical, the financial impact of system failures can be considerable. Studies show that even brief periods of downtime can lead to significant economic losses, affecting productivity and profitability. Consequently, it is essential for organisations to prioritise reliability and performance when assessing DIY software solutions, ensuring that these tools are robust enough to support uninterrupted operations.
In conclusion, while the appeal of building custom software solutions is undeniable, organisations must carefully consider the associated challenges and potential pitfalls. The time, resources, and ongoing support required for DIY projects can strain engineering teams and hinder overall productivity.
In many cases, existing software solutions offer the necessary flexibility and customisation capabilities to meet organisational needs without the drawbacks of building from scratch.
By acknowledging the complexities involved in DIY software development and recognising the value of existing solutions, engineering teams can focus their efforts on addressing core business challenges while leveraging technology to drive innovation and efficiency.