Build vs Buy AI Support: Decision Framework for 2025

Decision

Should we build our own AI support system or adopt a platform with out-of-box workflows and developer flexibility?

Buy a platform with out-of-box workflows unless you have 6+ dedicated engineers and 12+ months to reach feature parity.

42% of companies scrapped AI initiatives in 2024, up from 17% the prior year. The pattern is clear: building gives control but demands continuous maintenance. Buying gives speed but requires vendor trust.

70% of enterprises fail to quantify clear AI value despite heavy investment. For technical teams prioritizing citations and answer verification, the build path rarely delivers before stakeholder patience runs out.

The trade-off isn't technical capability. It's time-to-value versus long-term ownership costs.

Decision Framework

73% of agents believe an AI copilot would help them do their job better. But not all copilots deliver equal value for technical teams.

Use these four dimensions to evaluate any AI support solution:

In conversations with enterprise ops leaders, one requirement surfaces repeatedly: the ability to exclude opted-out customers from any AI process. Most vendors don't address this compliance gap until implementation.

Test each dimension with your actual documentation. A vendor that scores well on integration but lacks guardrails creates more problems than it solves.

Evaluation Scorecard

The table below scores Inkeep against building in-house across the four framework dimensions.

The timeline gap matters more than features. In-house builds promise full control but demand 6-12 months before reaching feature parity. Inkeep ships pre-built workflows immediately while SDK access preserves developer control.

The hidden cost most teams miss: RAG pipelines require continuous maintenance. Docs change. Models drift. Integrations break. The pattern is consistent—internal teams get pulled to product work, and AI support degrades.

This explains why 73% of RAG implementations happen at large organizations. Smaller teams lack the bench depth to sustain parallel workstreams.

The deflection numbers reinforce this gap. Average ticket deflection sits at 23%, but AI-powered teams achieve 40-60%. That spread requires production-ready infrastructure, not a promising prototype.

For teams evaluating both paths: Calculate total cost including 2+ FTEs for ongoing maintenance, not just initial build effort. The 6-month timeline assumes everything goes right—and stakeholder patience rarely survives delays.

---

Comparing platforms? Book a demo to see how Inkeep scores against the four-dimension framework with your own documentation.

---

What Breaks at Enterprise Scale

Enterprise deployments expose gaps that don't appear in POCs:

Compliance gaps — Excluding opted-out customers from AI processes requires custom logic most builds skip entirely. Generic RAG implementations lack the routing logic to honor these preferences at query time.

Infosec friction — Trial agreements and cost alignment before scaling create 3-6 month delays. Security reviews, vendor risk assessments, and procurement cycles stack up. Internal builds face different friction: each new data source triggers another security review.

Maintenance burden — RAG pipelines need continuous tuning as documentation changes. Internal teams get pulled to product work, leaving AI support to degrade silently. Time-consuming maintenance and outdated documentation become the default state within six months.

Shadow AI proliferation — When official tools lack flexibility, employees use unauthorized alternatives. Shadow AI usage jumped 250% year-on-year in some industries. This isn't defiance—it's pragmatism. Agents need answers faster than IT can approve new features.

The compounding problem: once AI support becomes critical path, uptime expectations change. Teams that treated AI as experimental suddenly need SLA clarity, dependency monitoring, and failover planning—none of which existed in the original build spec.

How Inkeep Helps

Inkeep addresses the three failure modes that kill most AI support projects: integration friction, shadow AI, and unmeasurable ROI.

• Native platform integration — The Zendesk copilot ships out-of-box with native workflows. Agents get cited answers inside their existing ticketing interface—no custom integration work, no context-switching.

• Developer control without shadow AI — Inkeep's SDK plus low-code hybrid gives developers programmatic control while ops teams configure guardrails through a visual studio. Changes sync between both interfaces, so neither team becomes a bottleneck.

• Gap analysis for measurable ROI — Gap analysis reports surface documentation holes from real customer questions. Instead of vague "AI improved satisfaction" metrics, teams see exactly which topics drive tickets and which docs need updates.

Recommendations

Your role determines which capabilities matter most.

For DevEx Leads: SDK flexibility and citation quality should top your list. Developers reject tools that don't integrate cleanly into existing workflows. Test whether the API exposes granular controls—can you customize retrieval parameters, override default behaviors, and access confidence scores programmatically?

For Support Directors: Focus on Zendesk copilot and gap analysis. These deliver measurable outcomes: ticket deflection rates and documentation improvement data. CX Trendsetters see 33% higher customer acquisition and 22% higher retention.

For Technical Founders: Calculate total cost including maintenance. A 6-month build requiring 2 FTEs ongoing rarely beats buying when you factor in RAG pipeline updates, model retraining, and integration maintenance. Your engineers should ship product features, not maintain AI infrastructure.

If you need control AND speed: Look for low-code + SDK hybrids. Changes should sync between visual studio and code—ops teams configure guardrails while developers extend functionality.

Next Steps

The build vs buy decision becomes clearer once you test against real requirements.

• Request a Demo — See the Zendesk copilot and gap analysis on your actual knowledge base. Bring your hardest edge cases—the technical questions that generate escalations today.

• Run a 30-day proof of concept with ticket data — Abstract comparisons miss the maintenance reality. Track time spent on RAG pipeline tuning, integration fixes, and retraining during the trial period—not just accuracy metrics.

For teams actively evaluating: We'll walk through how Inkeep scores on each framework dimension and show gap analysis reports from indexed documentation. The goal is helping you build an internal business case, whether that leads to buying or building.