Operations: build, buy, outsource · Decision guide
Compare keeping the manual process, building in-house, buying a tool and outsourcing, by cumulative cash, valued staff time, the month the costs cross, and how hard each is to undo.
Every path against today — select one to see exactly what changes
Counting cash alone, building looks cheapest, because engineering time is not a bill. Once staff time is valued, buying costs least under the default inputs, and building only overtakes the manual process after about fifteen months. The order changes with the build estimate, the value of an hour and today's manual hours — check the sensitivity table before trusting either answer.
Who this is for Operators and founders replacing manual work — invoicing, reporting, onboarding, a customer portal — and weighing engineering time against fees.
Optional. Answers decide which paths meet your hard constraints; "not sure" keeps a requirement unresolved instead of guessing.
Your current approach, the alternatives and a smaller reversible pilot — all with the same inputs and horizon.
Current approach
The team keeps doing the work manually.
Main uncertainty: How manual hours grow as volume grows (held flat here).
Alternative
An engineer builds a first usable version, then the team maintains and hosts it.
Main uncertainty: The build estimate — the high value is the one to plan cash and calendar around.
Alternative
Choose a vendor against the requirements list, integrate it, and pay a subscription.
Main uncertainty: How much of the process the tool really covers until you use it with real data.
Alternative
Document the process, hand it to a partner, and manage the partner.
Main uncertainty: Partner quality and responsiveness until the first months of operation.
Smaller reversible pilot
Keep the manual process running while trialling the most promising tool on one workflow for about three months.
Main uncertainty: Whether three months is long enough to see the edge cases.
Person-hours are everyone's effort added up, not calendar time. Valued staff time is hours × the value of an hour: an economic cost, not a bill.
| Path | Setup effort | Ongoing effort per week | Setup cash | Ongoing cash per month | Cash over the horizon | Incl. valued staff time | Weeks to go live |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keep doing it by hand | 0 h | 10 h | $0 | $0 | $0 | $78,750 | now |
| Build it in-house | 254 h | 4.68 h | $0 | $100 | $2,200 | $62,910 | 12 |
| Buy a tool | 64 h | 1 h | $1,000 | $400 | $10,600 | $27,325 | 6 |
| Outsource it | 44 h | 2 h | $2,000 | $1,500 | $38,000 | $59,450 | 4 |
| Pilot: a 90-day tool trial on one workflow | 22 h | 10 h | $0 | $0 | $1,200 | $82,350 | 14 |
Horizon: 24 months. Change the assumptions, compare any path with your current approach, combine steps and export a plan with the interactive tool (JavaScript).
Operations · every week from week 1 · 10 h / week
Gains: No setup cost; Full flexibility to change the process; The team keeps learning how the work really runs
Sacrifices: Hours every week, indefinitely; Errors and delays grow with volume
Must be true: Volume stays roughly where it is
Operations · weeks 1–1 · 8 h
Engineering · weeks 2–11 · 240 h
Operations · weeks 12–12 · 6 h
Operations · every week from week 1 · 10 h / week
Engineering · every week from week 12 · $100 / month
Engineering · every week from week 13 · 3.68 h / week
Operations · every week from week 13 · 1 h / week
Gains: Fits your process exactly; No vendor dependency; Can become part of the product
Sacrifices: Engineering time not spent elsewhere; Ongoing maintenance; Longest time to go live
Must be true: The build estimate is within the range entered; Someone owns maintenance after launch
Operations · weeks 1–1 · 8 h
Operations · weeks 2–2 · 12 h
Vendor or partner (cash only) · weeks 3–3 · $1,000
Vendor or partner (cash only) · every week from week 3 · $400 / month
Engineering · weeks 3–5 · 40 h
Operations · weeks 6–6 · 4 h
Operations · every week from week 1 · 10 h / week
Operations · every week from week 7 · 1 h / week
Gains: Fastest to go live; Maintenance is the vendor's job; Small engineering effort
Sacrifices: Subscription for as long as you use it; Process bends to the tool; Vendor and price risk
Must be true: You can export your data in a usable format; The price holds for the horizon
Operations · weeks 1–1 · 8 h
Operations · weeks 2–2 · 10 h
Operations · weeks 2–2 · 10 h
Vendor or partner (cash only) · weeks 3–3 · $2,000
Operations · weeks 3–4 · 16 h
Vendor or partner (cash only) · every week from week 3 · $1,500 / month
Operations · every week from week 1 · 10 h / week
Operations · every week from week 5 · 2 h / week
Gains: Almost no engineering time; Capacity that scales with the contract; Team freed from the work
Sacrifices: Highest monthly fee; Knowledge moves outside the team; Partner management effort
Must be true: Quality can be checked from outside; The contract allows exit with handover
Operations · weeks 1–1 · 4 h
Operations · weeks 1–1 · 6 h
Vendor or partner (cash only) · every week from week 2 · $400 / month
Engineering · weeks 2–3 · 10 h
Operations · every week from week 1 · 10 h / week
Operations · every week from week 4 · 1 h / week
Operations · weeks 14–14 · 2 h
Gains: Real evidence of fit; No long commitment; Manual process stays as a fallback
Sacrifices: Running two processes for a while; Trial fees
Must be true: The vendor allows a short, cancellable trial
Pick one concrete capability before comparing — for example "send invoices automatically from our order data". Then enter what it costs today: the manual hours your team spends on it each week.
Each path shows cash (setup and monthly) separately from valued staff time (hours × the value of an hour). Valued time is an economic cost, not a bill; switch it on and off in the Budget view to see both pictures. The crossover is the first month in which one path's cumulative cost passes another's under your inputs. No discounting is applied.
The timeline is template-based: go-live weeks are fixed in each path and do not stretch automatically if you raise the build estimate. Adjust start weeks in a custom path if your estimate changes the schedule.
What is not modelled: differences in quality, fit, vendor risk, security reviews and the cost of switching away later. They are listed beside each path as trade-offs and must-be-trues.
If the process itself is unclear or changes every month, automate nothing yet: standardise it by hand first. If the capability touches regulated data, a security and legal review comes before any of these paths.
Specific, dated practices — not whole-company models. Paths marked as an adaptation are WeCaseStudy's adaptation for your context, not a claim that the company used this exact workflow.
Calculations: formula family horizon_cost, version 1. Decision version 1. How the numbers are made
