In the world of product leadership, there’s a common affliction: the obsession with building everything in-house. It’s rooted in pride, control, and the belief that “only we can do it right.” But this mentality is not only inefficient—it’s dangerous.
Here’s a hard truth: your fascination with building in-house without customer feedback, and your aversion to partnerships, might be why your product is struggling to compete.
Product leaders often overlook a fundamental fact: customers don’t care whether you built it yourself or partnered with someone to create it—they just want a solution that works. Yet, we see time and again how companies waste precious time, money, and talent by reinventing the wheel in isolation.
Let’s unpack this with real-world examples, some hard numbers, and a framework for doing better.
The Perils of the “Build-It-All” Mentality
Time-to-Market Delays
In-house development often leads to delayed product launches. A Harvard Business Review study found that companies focusing solely on in-house innovation took 40% longer to launch new products compared to those leveraging partnerships or open innovation models. This delay is lethal in industries where being first to market provides a major competitive advantage.
Case in Point:
When BlackBerry refused to integrate third-party app ecosystems and insisted on building their own, they lost critical ground to Apple and Google. While BlackBerry was busy building in-house, Apple opened its iOS to third-party developers and created the App Store—a move that helped drive its dominance in the smartphone market. The result? A 95% decline in BlackBerry’s market share within a decade.
Had BlackBerry embraced partnerships earlier, it could have stayed competitive instead of becoming a cautionary tale.
Innovation Tunnel Vision
When you’re too focused on building in-house, you run the risk of creating products that solve internal problems rather than real customer pain points. Without customer feedback, your product team operates in a vacuum, guessing what the market needs instead of knowing. This results in products that don’t resonate with customers.
Case in Point:
Quibi, the short-form video streaming platform, raised $1.75 billion and launched with great fanfare. However, it failed spectacularly in less than six months because its leadership assumed customers wanted 10-minute shows designed exclusively for smartphones. They didn’t test the concept adequately with real users or consider how consumer habits had already been shaped by YouTube, TikTok, and Netflix. The result? A product that nobody asked for, funded by billions of dollars of wasted resources.
Missed Opportunities Through Partnerships
Partnerships can supercharge innovation by filling gaps in expertise, accelerating time-to-market, and expanding market reach. Yet, many product leaders shy away from partnerships due to fear of losing control or ownership. This fear is misguided.
Case in Point:
When Nike realized its in-house tech team couldn’t scale their wearable tech ambitions, they partnered with Apple to create the Apple Watch + Nike collaboration. This partnership combined Nike’s brand and fitness expertise with Apple’s technological capabilities. Today, this collaboration generates billions in annual revenue, something Nike’s internal team alone could never have achieved.
In contrast, Fitbit took years to build its tech stack in-house, only to be outpaced by Apple’s swift entry into the market. The result? Fitbit was eventually acquired by Google, but not before losing significant market share.
Quantifying the Impact of the Build vs. Partner Debate
The numbers speak for themselves:
- 76% faster growth: Companies leveraging partnerships grow significantly faster than those that don’t, according to PwC.
- 45% higher ROI: Products built with strategic partnerships often deliver higher ROI due to faster time-to-market and shared development costs.
- 33% higher success rate: Products that incorporate early customer feedback during development see a much higher success rate, as per CB Insights.
Simply put, partnerships and customer co-creation deliver measurable results.
Why Partnerships and Feedback Trump Isolation
Co-Creation with Customers
At my current organization, we foster on co-creation with of our enterprise customers by mapping their pain points and involving them in early prototyping. By leveraging their input at every step, we develop products that solved real, tangible problems. The result? A highly differentiated solution with strong product-market fit—and more revenue
Strategic Partnerships
Instead of building proprietary capabilities from scratch, we integrate in our partner platforms into our offerings. This collaboration saved millions in R&D costs, cut development time by 60%, and opened doors to global markets we couldn’t have accessed alone. Partnerships like these aren’t just practical—they’re transformative.
Fail Fast, Fail Cheap
Rather than spending two years perfecting an in-house MVP, launch a partnership-driven pilot in three months. Collect feedback, iterate, and scale. Amazon does this exceptionally well through its third-party seller ecosystem, which accounts for 58% of its retail sales. Instead of building every product internally, Amazon empowers its partners to create solutions at scale, benefiting both parties.
Breaking the “In-House” Addiction
If you’re a product leader grappling with the urge to build everything in-house, ask yourself these three questions:
Is this core to our differentiation?
If not, why are we wasting resources on it instead of partnering with experts?
When was the last time we engaged real customers for feedback before writing a single line of code?
If you’re not testing your assumptions with users, you’re flying blind.
Are we leaving value on the table by avoiding partnerships?
Partnerships aren’t about losing control—they’re about gaining speed, expertise, and market access.
Acquisition, Build, or Partner: Which Market-Entry Strategy Is Costing You More?
Let me try and break down market entry strategies of Acquisition, Build In-House, and Partnership based on my experience. Below table offers a high-level comparative view of when to use Acquisition, Build In-House, or Partnerships, helping leaders decide based on their strategic objectives, resource availability, and market dynamics.
| Market Entry Strategy | Acquisition | Build In-House | Partnership |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speed to Market | Fast – allows immediate access to markets and capabilities. | Slow – requires time to develop resources and capabilities internally. | Moderate – faster than building in-house but depends on partner alignment. |
| Cost | High – involves acquisition premiums, integration costs, and potential restructuring expenses. | Moderate – requires investment in R&D, talent, and time but avoids acquisition premiums. | Low to Moderate – shared costs but depends on partnership terms. |
| Risk | High – integration challenges, overpaying for acquisitions, and potential cultural clashes. | Moderate – risk of misalignment with market needs, delayed timelines, and cost overruns. | Moderate – relies on partner’s commitment, expertise, and alignment. |
| Core Competency Alignment | Suitable for markets requiring new, unrelated capabilities or complementary resources. | Ideal for leveraging and strengthening existing core competencies. | Effective for filling gaps in non-core areas or accessing complementary strengths. |
| Customer Proximity | Limited – acquisition targets may not have direct customer insights relevant to the acquiring firm. | High – if customer feedback is incorporated into development. | High – partners often bring customer-specific knowledge and access. |
| Scalability | High – allows instant scaling with the acquired firm’s infrastructure and market presence. | Low to Moderate – scaling takes time and resources. | High – partners can help with scaling in specific regions or markets. |
| Control | High – full control over the acquired assets and operations. | Very High – complete ownership and alignment with company goals. | Low to Moderate – shared control with partners, requiring negotiation and compromise. |
| Innovation Potential | Moderate – innovation depends on the acquired firm’s capabilities and integration success. | High – allows tailored solutions, but dependent on internal resources. | High – leverages diverse expertise and collaboration for innovative solutions. |
| Flexibility | Low – acquisitions are a long-term commitment and difficult to reverse. | High – can pivot strategies based on internal priorities. | High – easier to adjust or exit partnership agreements. |
| Cultural Integration | High challenge – cultural misalignment between acquirer and target firm may lead to inefficiencies. | Low – culturally aligned as it is developed internally. | Moderate – depends on the level of alignment between partners. |
| Best Use Case | Entering unrelated markets, filling significant resource gaps, or expanding product lines quickly. | Expanding within the core business, reinforcing competitive advantages, or when time is less critical. | Accessing new markets, gaining complementary capabilities, or co-developing innovative solutions. |
Final Thought: Don’t Be the Next BlackBerry
The market moves too fast for outdated, isolationist thinking. Building everything in-house might feel like control, but in reality, it’s a shortcut to irrelevance. The smartest leaders know when to build, when to buy, and when to partner.
So, let go of the “we can do it all” myth. Focus on solving real customer problems, leverage partnerships, and embrace feedback. Because in today’s world, the companies that win are the ones that innovate together.
What are your thoughts? Have you seen in-house obsessions derail innovation in your organization? Let’s discuss in the comments!
Leave a Reply