Build vs. Buy MES: Making the Right Choice for Your Manufacturing Operations (2025)

Evaluating an Manufacturing Execution System (MES) often leaves business leaders feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do you pour resources into building a custom system that risks becoming outdated, legacy code? Or do you settle for an off-the-shelf package that forces your carefully honed processes into its rigid box? This isn't just a software choice; it can be a critical decision that impacts your factory's efficiency, agility, and ability to innovate for years to come.

While an MES should provide real-time visibility and control, the wrong approach has the potential to create bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and headaches down the line.

The Build vs. Buy dilemma—whether to build a custom MES, buy Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS), or adopt a modern platform—requires careful navigation. This post cuts through the noise, drawing on years of experience helping manufacturers evaluate their options. We'll lay out a clearer way to think about the pros and cons of each path, helping you find the best fit for your factory and your goals.

Watch the Webinar: Breaking the MES Mold - New Strategies for Manufacturing →

The benefits of building: What’s the appeal?

Why would anyone take on building their own MES? Usually, it comes down to a few key factors:

• Getting it exactly right: The big driver is often wanting a system perfectly molded to unique, existing processes. For many, building it yourself seems like the ultimate way to get precisely what you need, without compromises.

• Total control: Developing in-house suggests you're in the driver's seat for features, updates, and how the system evolves. The thinking is you can innovate faster and tweak it exactly when business needs change.

• Keeping business secrets safe: If your processes are highly proprietary, building internally can feel like the best way to guard that sensitive operational know-how.

The hard realities of custom MES development

While that control sounds great, the road to a custom MES is often paved with unexpected challenges and hidden costs. The initial dream rarely matches the final reality. Think about these points:

• The upfront cost: Let's talk money and time. Building from scratch demands serious upfront investment and resources – skilled developers, project managers, infrastructure – plus a massive time commitment from various teams. It's way more than just coding; it's a major organizational lift.

• The long wait: Expect delays. Building a robust, scalable MES takes time – often 18-36 months, sometimes longer. That means a long wait before you see any real operational benefits (your time-to-value), while your competitors might be moving ahead.

• The never-ending upkeep: And the work doesn't stop at launch. Homegrown systems constantly need feeding: bug fixes, performance tweaks, security patches, OS/database compatibility updates, adding new features. This needs dedicated, skilled people who understand that custom code – it becomes a permanent operating expense.

• Validation nightmares: In regulated fields (like pharma or medical devices), validating a custom MES can be a beast. It's complex, documentation-heavy, and you have to redo it with every significant change, adding huge overhead.

• The "key person" risk: Homegrown systems often rely heavily on the knowledge trapped in the heads of a few key developers. If they leave, you could be in serious trouble trying to maintain, update, or even understand the system.

• Budgets and timelines? Often blown: Complex software projects like an MES are notorious for going over budget and past deadlines. Unexpected tech hurdles and changing requirements are the usual culprits.

• Integration headaches: Making your custom MES talk smoothly to everything else (ERP, PLM, QMS, all those different machine protocols) is often way harder and more expensive than you first guess. Keeping those connections stable over time adds even more complexity.

Counting the real cost of building

The sticker price of developer salaries is just the tip of the iceberg. To get a realistic picture (your total cost of ownership, or TCO), you have to factor in a whole lot more:

Think about direct development costs (developers, contractors, tools, licenses), project management time (PMs, analysts, endless meetings), infrastructure (servers/cloud, databases, networks), implementation and training efforts, and crucially, the ongoing costs for years to come (maintenance team, bug fixes, security updates, validation upkeep, hardware refreshes).

Then add the integration costs – building and maintaining connections to ERP, PLM, QMS, and diverse machines. And don't forget the opportunity cost – what else could your team have achieved while tied up on this multi-year project? Finally, factor in risk – what if budgets overrun, the project is delayed, a key person leaves, or worse, the whole thing fails?

Understanding these full costs is vital before you commit to the tough journey of building. It looks like ultimate control, but it's often longer, costlier, and riskier than you think.

Why buying looks like the easier route

Spooked by the risks and costs of building? Then buying a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) system probably looks tempting. These pre-packaged solutions promise a faster, potentially cheaper path to getting MES capabilities. Here's the appeal:

• Quicker wins (maybe): COTS vendors offer ready-made software, which should mean shorter deployment times compared to building from scratch. The promise is faster access to MES functions.

• Vendor smarts and support: Buying gets you access to the vendor's know-how, support teams, training, and documentation – stuff you'd otherwise have to create yourself.

• Lower initial cost (seems like it): Compared to the huge upfront investment of a custom build, the initial license or subscription fee for COTS can look more manageable and easier to budget.

• Proven features and scalability: COTS systems come with defined features, often sold as "best practices." Vendors usually offer roadmaps and claim the system can scale, giving a sense of security.

The downsides & gotchas of buying off-the-shelf

But those perceived benefits often come with serious trade-offs and hidden issues that can wipe out the initial benefits. When it comes to vendor evaluations, it’s important to look past the sales pitch:

• Your process must fit their box: Off-the-shelf systems are built around specific, often generic, workflows. Instead of the software bending to your unique operations, you might be forced to change your established, optimized processes to fit its limitations – potentially ditching what makes you competitive.

• "Customization"? Easier said than done: Vendors might say you can customize, but it's often limited, expensive, complicated, and breaks easily. Custom tweaks might need special vendor help, might not survive software updates (breaking when you upgrade!), or might just be impossible for core functions.

• Vendor lock-in and rising bills: Committing to a COTS MES often means tying your factory's core to one vendor's world – their roadmap, their pricing changes, their decisions. This makes you dependent and makes switching later difficult and costly. You're stuck with subscription hikes, forced upgrades, and maybe losing the MES features and functionality you rely on. Getting your data out can also become a headache.

• Functionality gaps and integration pain: No off-the-shelf system fits perfectly. You'll likely find gaps for your specific needs. And connecting that COTS MES smoothly to your existing tech stack (ERP, PLM, QMS, diverse machines)? Despite claims of easy compatibility, it often needs extra middleware, custom connectors, or expensive professional services.

• The "rip and replace" fear: Does putting in a COTS system mean throwing out everything else? Can it augment rather than replace? While some level of connection is often technically possible (APIs, vendor help), it's rarely simple. Trying to link a rigid COTS system to other tools often leads to fragile connections, data sync problems, and more layers of complexity to manage. It typically doesn't offer the seamless flow you get with more modern platform approaches.

Buying COTS might seem safer than building, but be crystal clear about the built-in rigidity, the limits on making it your own, the risk of getting locked in, and the true costs of making it talk to everything else.

Having spoken to countless manufacturers wrestling with the build vs. buy decision, one frustration pops up again and again: both traditional paths often force bad compromises.

Building your own frequently leads to runaway costs, long delays, and endless maintenance headaches. Rigid COTS solutions, on the other hand, can stifle innovation and force your operations into awkward shapes. This common pain point isn't just showing the need for something better; it's driving a real shift towards a more flexible, "composable" approach in manufacturing.

The shift: composable platforms

What's changing? We're seeing a move away from rigid, all-or-nothing systems (monoliths) and purely custom code towards modern manufacturing operations platforms.

Think of it as a hybrid model. You start with a solid base of pre-built core functions (handling essentials like collecting data, managing users, basic tracking). But the key difference is integrating powerful, accessible tools – usually no-code or low-code – that let manufacturers easily configure, extend, and even build their own applications and workflows on top. It's like getting a great toolkit and strong building blocks, empowering you to create solutions perfectly tailored to your needs without starting from absolute zero or being locked into fixed features.

This approach is inherently composable. You assemble solutions from modular bits and pieces (apps, connectors, integrations) specific to a task or workflow. This unlocks way more flexibility, speed, and room for innovation.

Why composability wins

This platform strategy directly tackles the main weaknesses of the old build and buy paths, offering big advantages:

• Faster value: Core capabilities are ready fast, slashing development time compared to building. You often see real benefits in weeks or months, not years.

• Real flexibility and agility: No-code/low-code means workflows, screens, and processes can adapt rapidly without complex coding or waiting on a vendor. The system bends to your operations, letting you react quickly.

• Empowering your experts: Intuitive tools let the engineers and operational staff who really understand the needs ("citizen developers") build and tweak solutions. This speeds up improvements right from the front lines. (It's a big trend – analysts predict the no-code/low-code market could hit $50 Billion by 2028).

• Simpler integration: Built for connectivity, these platforms usually offer connectors, APIs, and tools to more easily link diverse machines, sensors, business systems (like ERP), and even older tools, breaking down those frustrating data silos.

• Less maintenance hassle: The core platform infrastructure, security, and updates are typically handled by the vendor. This frees up your IT team from the upkeep burden of homegrown systems while giving you access to the latest features.

• Plays well with others: Platforms can often work alongside and enhance your existing systems. This allows for phased rollouts and avoids forcing a massive "rip and replace" if you don't want to.

Tulip: making composability a reality

This need for a flexible, empowering, connected solution – true composability – is exactly why platforms like Tulip's Frontline Operations Platform exist. It's built from the ground up for this composable model, aiming to fix the problems manufacturers hit with traditional build or buy choices. How?

• Real no-code app building: Process experts can visually create sophisticated apps using Tulip’s App Editor, turning operational logic directly into working tools without writing code.

• Smooth connectivity: A library of connectors and open APIs makes it easier to link machines, tools, sensors, and business systems, putting data in context right where it's needed.

• Composable setup: Build solutions using modular apps (from a library or create your own). Deploy only what you need, and easily adapt or add more later – avoiding the limits of monolithic systems.

• Effortless updates: As a cloud-native platform, Tulip handles the backend (infrastructure, security, updates) seamlessly, ensuring you get the latest capabilities without breaking your existing apps – a huge difference from the upgrade headaches of custom or COTS systems.

By mixing pre-built strength with accessible, powerful customization tools, platforms like Tulip offer a modern answer designed for the speed and specific needs of today's manufacturing, moving beyond the old build vs. buy limits.

Choosing between building, buying COTS, or adopting a modern platform isn't simple. As we've seen, each path has its own package of benefits, drawbacks, costs, and risks. The right decision hinges entirely on your specific situation – your operations, your resources, your strategic goals, and your stomach for risk.

To make this critical decision effectively, use this framework to weigh the key factors and ask the tough questions internally.

Key factors to weigh

Look at each approach (Build, Buy COTS, Platform) through these lenses:

Total cost of ownership (TCO): Look way beyond the initial price.

• Build: Remember that long list of real costs – development, PM, infrastructure, ongoing maintenance, integration pain, opportunity cost, risk buffer. It adds up fast.

• Buy (COTS): Include license/subscription fees, implementation/consulting, any (often expensive) customization, ongoing support contracts, and potential future upgrade costs.

• Platform: Usually subscription-based plus implementation. Ongoing maintenance on the core is often lower (vendor handles updates), and customization might be cheaper via no-code/low-code.

Time-to-value: How fast do you need to see results?

• Build: Slowest (often 18-36+ months).

• Buy (COTS): Moderate (months to maybe a year+, depends on complexity).

• Platform: Potentially fastest (weeks/months for first value, then build out).

Customization vs. configuration: How unique are your processes?

• Deeply unique processes might scream "build," but check if a platform's flexibility (via configuration/apps) offers a faster, less risky path to the same goal.

• Standard processes might seem like a fit for COTS, but will its rigidity force bad changes? Platforms often handle standard work well through configuration too.

Resource reality check: What internal expertise and bandwidth do you really have?

• Build: Needs a significant, skilled, dedicated internal dev and IT team, not just for the build, but forever.

• Buy (COTS): Less internal dev needed, but you become reliant on vendor support, consultants, and maybe specialized internal admins.

• Platform: Leverages your process experts ("citizen developers") alongside IT. Might reduce need for programmers but still needs IT governance.

Integration complexity: How easily can this solution talk to everything else you have?

• The usual suspects: Smoothly integrating with ERP (data mapping, sync), diverse PLCs (OPC-UA, Modbus, older stuff), legacy equipment, other cloud tools, and ensuring security is never trivial. Plan carefully.

• Build: Requires custom code for every connection – time-consuming and fragile.

• Buy (COTS): Often needs costly middleware, vendor connectors (that might not cover everything), or professional services.

• Platform: Usually designed for connectivity with modern APIs, pre-built connectors, and tools to simplify integration.

Future-Proofing: How will it adapt to growth, new tech (like AI/ML), or process changes? Think about adding lines, sites, or products. Compare architectural rigidity (COTS) vs. potential tech debt (Build) vs. designed adaptability (Platform).

The People Side: How will you manage the human element of change? Assess readiness, training plans, adoption strategy, and how the system will support ongoing improvement.

Long-Term Strategy: Consider vendor health and roadmap (COTS/Platform), data ownership policies (can you get your data out easily?), and switching costs (vendor lock-in risk).

Industry Needs: Don't forget specific sector demands. Life Sciences needs intense validation (tough for Build & COTS). Automotive demands deep traceability. Factor these priorities in.

Tough Questions for Your Teams

With those factors in mind, get the right people talking. Use these questions to spark candid discussions between IT and Operations:

Ask IT:

• Realistically, what's the true cost and team size needed to build and maintain a custom MES long-term?

• What's our current IT project backlog? Can we honestly prioritize a multi-year MES build right now?

• How fast can we actually roll out new features or system updates today?

• What are the risks of owning, securing, and maintaining a complex, custom operational system ourselves, forever?

• How much time are we already sinking into supporting existing homegrown or legacy stuff?

• Do we have the in-house skills to handle tricky integrations with all our different factory tech (OT) and business systems?

Ask Operations:

• Where exactly are our current systems (or paper trails) hindering productivity, quality, or our ability to react quickly?

• How long do operators or engineers usually wait for requested system fixes or new functions? Months? Years? Never?

• Are we relying on paper, spreadsheets, or manual workarounds to fill system gaps? What are the real risks and inefficiencies there?

• How often do our processes change or need tweaking? How easy (or impossible) is it to adapt our current systems or manual ways?

• What's the actual impact on production when systems go down or data is wrong?

Answering these questions honestly will give you the critical context needed to weigh the options and align the decision with your company's reality and direction.

Ultimately, there's no single "right" answer to the build vs. buy vs. platform MES question that fits everyone. The best path depends entirely on your unique operational world, your strategic aims, and what your teams can realistically handle.

Building offers deep customization but comes with significant risks and costs. Buying off-the-shelf might seem faster initially but often forces you to compromise on process and locks you into a vendor. Modern platforms aim for a sweet spot, trying to deliver flexibility and speed by blending pre-built foundations with accessible tools for tailoring.

The key is a clear-eyed evaluation of factors like total cost, flexibility needs, time-to-value pressures, and resource realities. For many, starting small and phasing things in – maybe augmenting existing systems or tackling specific pain points first, often leveraging a platform's composability – can be a smart way to move forward.

Ready to explore how a modern, composable platform can help tackle your specific operational challenges? Let's talk. Reach out to our team to discuss what you need.