Configurator & CPQ: In-house development or external provider
Author: Elisabeth Sonnleitner
The decision between in-house development and standard software for configurator and CPQ systems is a classic make-or-buy question—with long-term implications for sales, IT, and organization. Anyone who wants to make this decision must understand where the actual effort lies, where costs are really incurred, and which risks are often underestimated. In the following, we will look at this decision from a practical perspective.
Time-to-Market
With an in-house development, the project does not begin with the configurator, but with the establishment of the technical foundation. Before product logic or rules can be modeled, key fundamental issues must be resolved.
Typically, these include:
- Hosting and infrastructure
- Scalability for many simultaneous users
- Performance
- Storage of each individual configuration
- Recallability including number and status logic
- Version histories for configurator and data
- Setup of your own data environment
- …
At the same time, ongoing technical operations continue: web standards change, browsers need to be supported, and security and system updates are constantly required. This work does not disappear - it is a prerequisite for getting started in the first place.
Only after all of this has been resolved does the actual work on the configurator begin.
This foundation is already in place with an external provider. The platform is in productive use, scalable, continuously maintained, and secure across all browsers.
The key difference lies in reusability. Modular building blocks and recurring logic ensure that no project has to start from scratch—neither technically nor conceptually.
Costs
In-house developments often appear cheaper at first, as there are no licensing costs. In practice, however, the picture is different.
In many projects, the following is omitted:
- Around 70% of the costs are for setting up the technical basis (infrastructure, architecture, security, maintainability).
- Only around 30% are for the actual, individual configurator project.
In addition, there are ongoing costs for:
- Hosting and operation
- Maintenance and technical support
- External services that also need to be licensed and operated
Solutions from external providers significantly shift this ratio. The technical basis is already in place and is used by many customers. This reduces one-time costs, while monthly subscription fees ensure ongoing, smooth operation.
The decisive factor is not the start of the project, but the outlook over several years. If you look at the total cost of ownership over five years, you will quickly see that in-house development, which appears to be cheaper, often turns out to be the more expensive option in the long term.
Scalability
Scalability means more than just technical performance. It primarily concerns structure and expandability. In individually developed systems, this often leads to increasing complexity, as new requirements deeply interfere with existing logic.
Typical growth scenarios are:
- Expansion of the product range
- Rollout in new countries
- Establishment or expansion of a dealer or partner network
Existing CPQ platforms work differently. Once a model has been properly set up, it can be rolled out across multiple countries, with new markets primarily being supplemented by data - not new logic. Instead of developing three countries individually, a scheme is created that can be transferred to ten more.
In addition, existing standard software already offers many key functions - such as role and rights systems, pricing logic, and sales via partner and dealer structures. These functions are tried and tested, ready to use, and do not require time-consuming development.
Maintenance & Care
One of the most critical issues with in-house developments is long-term maintainability.
The following problems often arise in in-house developments:
- Mixing of data, logic, and code
- Unclear assignment of rules and data sets
- High dependence on individual developers
Existing configurator and CPQ platforms deliberately focus on:
- A centralized database
- Clear separation of logic and data
- Maintenance and updates without direct code intervention
The key lies in early clarity: Which content changes regularly—and which practically never? While product logic rarely changes, data is constantly in flux.
Speed of innovation & further development
An often underestimated advantage of platform solutions is their continuous development.
In a short period of time, functions will be added that individual companies would find difficult to develop themselves in a cost-effective manner - such as version histories in offer management, margin calculations, or rule-based discount logic at the user or role level.
The market is evolving -and the platform is evolving with it. Companies benefit directly from these developments without having to set up their own development projects.
Risk
In-house developments rarely fail because of the idea itself, but rather because of complexity and lack of experience. Lack of experience with CPQ and configurator projects often leads to massive underestimation. Projects lasting several years that never go live are no exception.
Added to this is the personnel risk. If critical knowledge is held by one or two people, this creates a dangerous dependency. If this expertise is lost, the entire system often comes to a standstill. Existing standard software significantly reduces these risks, as the technology, processes, and experience are already in place.
Support
In addition to technology, one thing above all else determines the success of a configurator or CPQ system in everyday use: ongoing operation and the quality of support.
If you develop the CPQ solution yourself, you are also on your own. A professional provider, on the other hand, not only takes care of hosting and technical stability, but also ensures that there are clear responsibilities. Instead of changing tickets, anonymous hotlines, or internal dependencies, companies have a personal contact person who knows the system, the product logic, and the individual requirements.
At the same time, a partnership model is created. Practical requirements do not disappear into backlogs, but are incorporated into the further development of the software in a structured manner. Customers can provide feedback, help shape priorities, and benefit from new features that arise from real-world use cases.
The result is not a static system, but a solution that is continuously evolving - technically stable, professionally supported, and with a dedicated contact person who takes responsibility.
Conclusion
In-house development is a good option if the company has the necessary expertise, time, and sustainable resources. This approach can be particularly useful for simple, superficial visual configurators.
However, the following applies to most companies:
If you want to be productive quickly, scale up, minimize risks, and control costs in the long term, an existing configurator and CPQ platform gives you a clear advantage.
Standard software is by no means less customized - quite the contrary. It enables customization precisely where it creates real added value: in the product, in logic, and in the sales process- not in basic technical issues that do not provide a competitive advantage.
Take advantage of a free initial consultation with Combeenation and ask your questions about configurator and CPQ software.
FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION
You may also be interested in: