Build vs Buy: The Decision Most Organisations Get Wrong

Part 2 of 4: RegTech Selection Done Right

"We can build this ourselves."

Five words that have launched a thousand failed compliance projects.

I've sat in enough steering committees to recognise the pattern. The CTO leans forward, confident. The compliance team looks hopeful. The CFO is already calculating the savings.

Eighteen months later, the project is over budget, half-finished, and the vendor they dismissed is now being invited back to the table.

The build decision isn't always wrong. But it's often made for the wrong reasons.

The Ego Factor

Let's name what nobody wants to say out loud.

Sometimes "we can build this" really means "I want to build this."

There's a certain allure to custom development. It feels strategic. It signals capability. It gives someone a flagship project to own.

But compliance technology isn't a showcase. It's infrastructure. The goal isn't elegance. It's effectiveness.

The question isn't can we build it, it's should we.

When Building Makes Sense

To be clear: building isn't inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons to develop in-house.

Build when:

→ Your regulatory requirements are genuinely unique, not just "we do things differently here"

→ The capability is a core competitive differentiator, not a cost centre

→ You have deep, stable in-house expertise, not just one senior engineer who "gets it"

→ You've calculated the true total cost of ownership, including maintenance, updates, and regulatory changes

→ You're prepared to own this for 10+ years

That last point matters. Regulations evolve. Staff turnover happens. The person who architected the system will eventually leave.

What happens then?

When Buying Makes Sense

Buy when:

→ Speed to compliance is critical. Regulators aren't waiting for your sprint cycles

→ The vendor has domain expertise you'd need years to develop

→ The regulatory landscape is shifting fast, so, let someone else track the changes

→ Your internal tech resources are limited or stretched

→ This function is a commodity, not a differentiator

While having stromg Compliance Programme is for sure a competitive advantage, understand this … most compliance functions are not differentiators.

Your transaction monitoring system isn't what makes customers choose you. Your screening process isn't your competitive edge.

It is infrastructure. And infrastructure is often better bought than built. Let the specialists handle it.

The Hidden Third Option

The build vs buy debate assumes a binary choice. Reality is messier. The hybrid approach:

→ Buy the core platform, build the integrations

→ Use vendor APIs to customise workflows to your needs

→ Start with a vendor solution, migrate to custom as you scale and learn

This is often the smartest path. You get speed to market, domain expertise, and regulatory coverage, while retaining flexibility to adapt.

But it requires humility. It means admitting you don't have all the answers yet.

The Questions That Actually Matter

Before your next build vs buy debate, ask:

1. What's the true total cost of ownership?

Not just development costs. Maintenance. Updates. Regulatory changes. Staff turnover. Opportunity cost of your best engineers working on compliance instead of product.

2. Do we have the talent to maintain this long-term?

Building is the easy part. Living with what you built is hard. What happens when your architect leaves? When regulations change? When the system needs a fundamental redesign?

3. How fast is the regulatory environment changing?

If you're in a jurisdiction where rules shift frequently, a vendor with dedicated regulatory analysts might be worth the premium.

4. Is this a differentiator or a commodity?

Be honest. If your competitors are all using similar solutions, maybe this isn't where you need to be special.

5. What problem are we actually solving?

Sometimes "let's build" is a solution looking for a problem. The real issue might be process, not technology.

The Real Risk

The biggest risk isn't choosing wrong between build and buy. It's making the decision for the wrong reasons.

Ego. Politics. The desire to own something. The assumption that custom is always better.

I've seen organisations spend millions building systems that underperformed off-the-shelf solutions. I've seen CTOs leave, taking institutional knowledge with them, leaving behind unmaintainable code and a compliance team in crisis.

The best technology leaders I know aren't attached to building. They're attached to solving problems, by whatever means works best.

The Bottom Line

Build vs buy isn't a technical decision. It's a strategic one.

It requires honest assessment of your capabilities, your constraints, and your priorities. It requires checking egos at the door.

And it requires asking: what's actually best for the organisation, not what's most interesting to build?

Decided to buy? The next question is: which vendor?

Part 3 explores how to evaluate RegTech solutions using a framework built on trust, not just features. And we've created a practical checklist to guide you through the process.

Coming up in Part 3: Evaluating RegTech Solutions - A Framework Built on Trust