Tech Buy Vs Build

Tech — Buy vs. Build (AI Sourcing)

Decide whether to build AI capability in-house, buy from a vendor, or partner. Applies NANDA's empirical 2:1 buy advantage and a vendor-archetype selection framework.

The principle: Buy the model. Build the orchestration. Foundation models commoditize — the moat lives in orchestration, workflow design, and the skill library. (Consult nanda-tech-buy-vs-build.md and andrew-ng-three-moats.md.)

Output contract (stable): per-component Buy / Build verdicts plus an overall investment verdict.

---

Role 1: Map the Decision

Not all AI investment is the same decision. First, classify what is being sourced.

COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION — for each component being decided, classify:

• Foundation model capability (GPT-level reasoning, multimodal, code generation) → almost always BUY
• Orchestration / workflow automation → BUILD for the parts that encode your processes; BUY platforms where commodity works
• Fine-tuned or domain-specific model → BUILD (on top of a bought base) only if the domain is genuinely proprietary
• End-user application / interface → often BUY (SaaS or API), with customization built in-house
• Data infrastructure → BUILD (it is company-specific; no vendor can own your data strategy)
• Skill library / process knowledge → BUILD (this is the moat — consult hiten-skill-library.md)

Output a component map: for each component, state the type and initial BUY/BUILD instinct before analysis.

Output: COMPONENT | TYPE | INITIAL INSTINCT

---

Role 2: The 2:1 Evidence Test

MIT NANDA 2025 finding: firms that buy AI capability vs. build it internally are 2× more likely to capture value. (Consult 95-5-genai-divide.md)

For each BUY candidate, confirm the buy rationale holds:

1. Does an existing vendor solution cover ≥80% of the use case? If no: buying may not solve the problem.
2. Is the build effort primarily in the model, or in integration and workflow? If model: buy. If integration/workflow: that's a build regardless.
3. Is the value in having this model, or in what you do with it? If value is in the doing: buying the model is the input, not the output.
4. Is this a commodity capability or a differentiating capability? Commodity = buy. Differentiating = evaluate carefully.

For each BUILD candidate, confirm the build rationale holds:

1. Is this component genuinely proprietary? (Your company's data, your company's processes, your company's domain logic)
2. Would a vendor solution expose competitive IP?
3. Is this the orchestration/workflow/skill layer? (Yes = valid build candidate)
4. Is the build timeline realistic for a 90-day pilot? (If not: buy something that works and build the proprietary layer later)

Output: COMPONENT | BUY/BUILD VERDICT | RATIONALE

---

Role 3: Vendor Archetype Selection

For BUY decisions, the wrong vendor archetype is as costly as the wrong build/buy direction. Three archetypes; most organizations need more than one.

Full-stack platform (e.g., Azure AI, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex):

• Best for: organizations wanting a single vendor relationship, infrastructure-level AI platform
• Risk: lock-in; customization is bounded by vendor platform decisions
• Use when: you need infrastructure + model + developer tooling from one place

Specialist API provider (e.g., Anthropic, OpenAI, specialized vertical AI APIs):

• Best for: specific capability needs (coding, reasoning, vision, domain-specific)
• Risk: model changes upstream; API versioning; multiple vendors to manage
• Use when: you need best-in-class capability for a specific task type, not a platform

Systems integrator / implementation partner:

• Best for: organizations that lack the internal capability to integrate AI into their operational workflows
• Risk: dependency; IP created in the engagement may belong to the vendor
• Use when: the integration challenge is greater than the AI capability challenge

For each component:

• State the vendor archetype that fits
• Name 1–2 candidate vendors
• Name the key evaluation criteria for this component

Output: COMPONENT | VENDOR ARCHETYPE | CANDIDATE VENDORS | EVALUATION CRITERIA

---

Role 4: Investment Verdict

Synthesize Roles 1–3 into a sourcing strategy.

SOURCING STRATEGY SUMMARY:

For each component:

• BUY (which archetype, which vendors to evaluate)
• BUILD (what specifically, what the build produces, why it is proprietary)
• PARTNER (what the partner provides, what the org retains)

MOAT ASSESSMENT: Which layer of this sourcing strategy builds toward a defensible moat? (Consult andrew-ng-three-moats.md)

• The model is not the moat
• The orchestration + workflow + skill library is the moat
• Confirm that the BUILD investments are in moat-building components

RISK FLAGS:

• Is any BUILD investment in a component that a vendor can replicate cheaply? (Flag as misallocated)
• Is any BUY creating lock-in in a strategically critical layer? (Flag as risk)
• Is the build timeline and capability present for the BUILD components? (Flag any gaps)

Output: SOURCING STRATEGY | MOAT ASSESSMENT | RISK FLAGS | RECOMMENDED NEXT ACTION

---

References

All files below live in references/ at the plugin root (${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/ when installed as a plugin).

• nanda-tech-buy-vs-build.md — 2:1 buy advantage; orchestration as moat; vendor archetypes
• 95-5-genai-divide.md — empirical basis for buy advantage
• andrew-ng-three-moats.md — moat types; "buy the model, build the orchestration" principle
• hiten-skill-library.md — skill library as the BUILD layer that compounds
• ai-stack-layers.md — which stack layers are buy vs. build candidates

Reference files are bundled with this skill — Claude resolves them by filename regardless of install layout (single-skill or plugin).

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: geledek
• Source: geledek/enterprise-ai-transformation-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.