In-house IT builds are falling flat and going way over budget – here's why

Fewer than three-in-ten in-house IT builds are delivered on time and on budget, new research shows, largely thanks to hidden costs and a drain on productivity.

In a recent survey from Exclaimer, 71% of IT and security leaders reported their in-house builds are eventually abandoned.

That figure rises to an overwhelming 83% in heavily regulated industries like manufacturing and finance, the survey found.

“We commissioned this report to bring clarity to a question every IT leader faces: do you build, or do you buy?” said Paul Hammond, chief product and technology officer at Exclaimer.

Latest Videos From

“The data shows that while building in-house can feel like control, it often comes at the expense of time, security, and scalability."

What’s the appeal of in-house IT?

One-third (33%) of UK teams build in-house to meet compliance and data residency requirements, while US teams build primarily for integrations with legacy systems (28%).

However, US IT leaders report higher rates of downtime from internal tools, at 74%, compared with 50% in the UK.

Nearly half of IT teams told Exclaimer that they still prefer to build their own tools, but only 8% of those projects are delivered on time and just 11% stay on budget.

More than half take 1.6 to two times longer than planned, and 46% of all in-house IT projects end up costing almost twice the original budget.

Meanwhile, 63% of teams said they spend between 10 and 50 hours per month maintaining internal tools, and 66% require an additional $20,000 to $100,000 a year to keep them running.

Roughly two-thirds (64%) reported security-related downtime, and 31% compliance and data protection challenges.

Only 6% of US builds are finished on time, and 11% in the UK, while 89% of US projects exceed budget, compared with 84% in the UK.

Buying, rather than building

As for those that buy rather than build, the main reasons were speed (30%), access to expertise (29%), and reliability (28%).

UK teams tend to turn to specialist vendors for compliance and control, while US teams cite faster scalability and reduced maintenance.

Both regions show a decisive shift, researchers noted, with buying for efficiency now outweighing building for control.

In terms of security, UK leaders are more likely to say vendors offer greater protection (51%), while US leaders express stronger confidence in their own builds (59%).

“As organizations race to modernize and scale securely, we’re seeing that IT leaders recognize that buying from trusted partners delivers faster deployment, predictable performance, and built-in compliance without the constant drain of maintenance and patching," said Hammond.

"The research shows that these partnerships now represent trust, visibility, and control, backed by enterprise-grade governance and security. The question is therefore not whether IT teams can build, they must decide when they should.”

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Make sure to follow ITPro on Google News to keep tabs on all our latest news, analysis, and reviews.

You can also follow ITPro on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and BlueSky.