Build the workflow yourself — or maintain a delivery system as the firm grows?
First, the credit due
What Build it yourself does well
The decision in one sentence
What is actually being compared
Building buys you a first version you own; adopting buys you a maintained system. The decision is whether isolation, review, memory and delivery are engineering you want to carry as the firm grows — or infrastructure you want to stand on.
The honest split
When Build it yourself is enough — and where the cost begins
Build it yourself is likely enough when…
Coordination starts to cost real time when…
Day to day
The same six moments, in both workflows
| Moment | Build it yourself | Launchpad |
|---|---|---|
| Set up | Design and build it — and keep building as real needs appear behind the first ones. | Model your delivery in an existing system: specialists, teams, knowledge, engagements. |
| Start a task | As good as what you built — that is the point of building. | Give the delivery team the task inside the engagement; roles and context are already in place. |
| Update the method | Change your code or configuration; you own the regression risk and the rollout. | Update the specialist or firm knowledge once; the platform’s behaviour is maintained for you. |
| Review | A review step exists if and when you build one, and it evolves only when someone builds more. | Critic and validator roles are part of the session model, with human approval as the boundary. |
| Deliver | Document generation is its own sub-project, usually the perpetually-deferred one. | Shape the editable report, then generate the client-facing deliverable from the approved version. |
| Return later | As durable as the persistence you designed — and as documented as you kept it. | Reopen the engagement — context, memory and the working report are carried by the system. |
Tradeoffs
What adopting Launchpad costs
Decision guide