When it comes to managing employee resumes, CVs, and project data for proposals, professional services firms have two choices they can make. Some choose to leverage out-of-the-box third-party solutions, while others consider building custom in-house tools tailored to their processes. At first glance, the allure of an internal system can seem appealing— complete control, no third-party costs, and features hyper-tailored to their needs.
However, both firms evaluating potential in-house builds and those already living with internally built resume tools should think carefully. While aiming for an ideal, perfectly customized platform is an understandable goal, reality often falls short of those expectations. Solutions often fall under the category of "good enough", which as we discuss later, is never good enough. Moreover, the long-term maintenance of an internally built system comes with overwhelming opportunity costs.
In this blog, we’ll take a look at some of the key reasons why firms should think hard when implementing or continuing with in-house tools. We’ll also uncover two common fallacies that make companies that use in-house tools resistant to change.
The initial build
For those considering building an in-house tool, the first and most obvious thing to consider is that developing a best-in-class system from scratch is an incredible undertaking. It can take months, if not years, to build and requires extensive planning. You’ll likely need to hire new technical talent or divert their attention away from competing priorities. Meanwhile, you’ll need to carefully consider a long-term vision for the tool; will what you build today be relevant in a year or two's time?
Ongoing maintenance and updates
For those who already have an in-house tool, or those who are happy to deal with that initial developmental hurdle, one of the key challenges of going in-house is the continual maintenance that the platform will require. In fact, in the long-term, the time you spend managing your system will likely far surpass the time spent building it. Time and resources spent on general troubleshooting, internal product requests, creating integrations, and general system upkeep can quickly accumulate.
Furthermore, few firms can realistically retain top engineering talent who are focused solely on managing and updating their internal systems. The allure of faster-moving projects will likely pull your talent elsewhere, meaning you’ll also need to account for time spent training new engineers.
Keeping up with tech advancements
No matter how important your internal tool is, the reality is that it will never be your key focus. After all, unlike dedicated software providers, for professional services firms, technology is a means to an end, not the end itself.
As a result, internal tools will rarely be able to keep up with dedicated systems. New technology will inevitably surface and software companies will be the first to implement them. The emergence of AI is a great example of this. How many internal tools have been elevated by generative AI features? Our guess is relatively few. As these types of developments become more and more prevalent, established players embracing modern technology will rapidly outpace custom-built legacy systems.
Curious about AI and its impact on bid processes? Check out this webinar where our CEO discusses AI's implications for bids and proposals.
The ‘Good Enough’ fallacy
For firms that already have an in-house resume management tool, a common rebuttal we hear is that while they recognize their internal tools have some limitations, overall their tools are “good enough.” The challenge with this statement is that bidding for proposals is an all-or-nothing game. Not being able to source that one colleague who has the niche skills to fit the bill, not hyper-tailoring the profile to meet the client’s needs, or not being consistent with your document formatting are all things that could be the difference between your firm winning or losing the bid. When responding to must-win, high-stakes proposals, you need to put your best foot forward in every facet of the proposal and in each proposal you bid for. Therefore, “good enough” is rarely good enough.
The ‘Sunken Cost’ fallacy
Another natural point of contention for teams with in-house tools when considering third-party software is that of sunk costs. Of course, thinking about money and resources spent on an existing inefficient solution is an unpleasant reality to accept. However, at some point, firms need to reevaluate whether it’s worth continuing to throw money at a ‘passable’ tool or whether it makes more sense to invest in a best-in-class platform. As we mentioned earlier, with new technologies like AI and automation widening the gap between legacy tools and specialized systems, firm’s must consider turning a blind eye to sunk costs in favor of future productivity.
Get started with a best-in-class tool
Embracing a modern, specialized platform, such as Flowcase, allows professional services firms to sidestep the in-house trap while benefiting from an innovative, best-in-class platform. Rather than carrying the burden of maintaining existing systems and struggling to keep up with emerging technologies, your firm can thrive with a platform that’s built to grow with you.
