Build vs buy in the age of AI for the nonprofit sector

When buying makes sense

"When you buy, you're handing over the work of keeping a system up to date, secure, and aligned with best practice," Ivan says.

He adds, "If your need is relatively standard, there's usually a product on the market that can do it well," and that "shortcut can save organisations a huge amount of time and risk". For charities with straightforward requirements and limited internal capacity, this can be an appealing route that reduces pressure and speeds up delivery.

Kyle agrees. "Most needs will be met by established products, like your CRM and analytics platforms. It’s better to plug these in than to rebuild," he says, "but avoid platforms that claim to do it all. Pick the best of each product and combine them."

However, Kyle cautions that "as charities evolve, they often find that the systems which once worked perfectly start to hold them back. Licence fees rise, integrations become harder, and adapting to new requirements can mean paying again for the same capabilities."

For many organisations, the convenience of buying must be weighed against the long-term benefits of control, ownership and sustainability. A ready-made system can solve today’s problems, but may limit growth further down the line.

When building makes sense

"There are situations where you might have specific compliance, accessibility, or safeguarding needs," Ivan says. "In those cases, an off-the-shelf tool might not be enough, and building becomes the more effective route."

For Kyle, this is where many of the sector’s biggest opportunities lie. "AI tooling has changed what’s possible," he says. "We can now build custom prototypes and systems faster than ever, and rapidly test ideas with users that would have previously been too expensive. But moving from prototype to production takes human oversight - I see a lot of slop in this space, and that’s a risk charities can’t afford to take."

Ivan also points out that too often, charities build in isolation when collaboration would make better use of limited resources. "If you create something genuinely innovative and valuable, keeping it to yourself is a wasted opportunity. Ideally, you'd share or co-develop with peers to push the sector forward."

This collaborative mindset reflects a broader movement towards open, shared digital infrastructure across the charity sector. Building isn’t about reinventing the wheel; it’s about expanding on successful foundations to meet specific needs.

It’s not really build versus buy anymore

Kyle believes the ‘build vs buy’ question has evolved. "The most effective digital strategies combine the best of both worlds," he says. "Charities that try to buy everything end up boxed in, while those who build everything burn out. The winners build on top of what they buy to own the architecture, not the product."

Kyle adds, "Whatever you choose, you must own your data, control your integrations, and be able to replace any component without rewriting your entire system. That’s what the build–buy balance actually means nowadays."

Ivan agrees that the line between building and buying has blurred. "With so many high-quality frameworks and low-code tools available, you're rarely building from scratch. It's about plugging existing systems together, and sometimes adding small bespoke layers where needed."

He notes that this shift is changing what technical expertise looks like. "I see more demand for entrepreneurial engineers, people who love combining tools and writing the least code possible, rather than traditional developers starting from a blank screen."

Together, their perspectives highlight how modern digital teams increasingly act as integrators rather than traditional software developers.

The charity sector’s unique challenge

"In charities, the long-term cost of maintaining something built in-house is often underestimated," Ivan says. "Too often, projects get funded and delivered, but nobody has planned properly for how it will be supported after launch, one, three or five years down the line."

Kyle expands on this, noting that the real challenge is not just maintenance, but pricing over time. "Charities operate in a different financial reality to commercial organisations," he says. "Budgets are often fixed, funding is cyclical, and every pound must demonstrate impact. That means the total cost of ownership across the entire lifespan of a platform is critical to get right."

He explains that the decision isn’t about the cheapest option today, but the most sustainable one tomorrow. "Whether you buy or build, consider the total cost over the expected lifespan, including license fees and staff costs, and choose the path that lets you flex and scale over time."

Long-term value comes from understanding the full cost of a system over its lifetime, not just the cost of getting it live.

Managing risk in a fast-moving market

Kyle notes that one of the biggest challenges for charities is managing risk in a landscape changing faster than ever. "The charities that thrive design systems they can adapt easily." That adaptability is also key to staying safe and compliant as AI reshapes the digital landscape.

Ivan agrees that this landscape demands stronger due diligence. "The explosion of AI tools has brought new risks to the buy side," he says. "With so many startups entering the space, it can be hard to predict which vendors will survive. We may see more winners and losers than before. Charities need strong supplier evaluation processes, looking not just at whether a product works, but at the vendor's roadmap, financial resilience and alignment with your mission."

At the same time, Ivan says vendor lock-in isn't automatically a bad thing. "Sometimes the right partnership is exactly what you need - lock-in can mean stability and long-term support as long as you've chosen the right partner."

They both agree that risk management isn’t about avoiding change, it’s about planning for it. Whether adopting, integrating, or developing technology, success depends on having a plan for how systems evolve, not just how they are launched.

A pragmatic approach for the future

As technology evolves faster than ever, Ivan and Kyle agree that charities need to move quickly but safely. The pace of AI adoption and digital change brings opportunity, but also new risks around data, privacy and governance.

Ivan warns against rushing ahead without that foundation. "Prototypes can quickly become live tools, sometimes with sensitive data. If the governance gaps aren't closed, that's dangerous," he says. His advice is simple: start small, measure the impact, and be prepared to adjust the course. "The decision isn't set in stone. With the right planning, you can adapt over time. What matters most is having the capability to evaluate, the honesty to confront risks and the foresight to plan for the long term."

Kyle agrees that the need for strong security and governance cannot be overstated. "Charities handle a lot of sensitive data, and protecting it has to come before launching something exciting."

For most charities, the challenge isn’t a lack of awareness, but a lack of capacity. Security can feel daunting, but it has to remain non-negotiable. The answer lies in prioritising the areas that matter most. Understanding where sensitive data sits, keeping access limited, and maintaining clear governance are the foundations that make everything else possible. Getting the basics right doesn’t make security simple, but it makes it sustainable - and that’s what builds long-term confidence.