Hubbry Logo
In-house softwareIn-house softwareMain
Open search
In-house software
Community hub
In-house software
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
In-house software
In-house software
In-house software
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In-house software is computer software for business use within an organization. In-house software can be developed by the organization itself or by someone else, or it could be acquired.[1] In-house software however may later become available for commercial use upon sole discretion of the developing organization. The need to develop such software may arise depending on many circumstances which may be non-availability of the software in the market, potentiality or ability of the corporation to develop such software or to customize a software based on the corporate organization's need.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

In-house software

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In-house software, also known as captive or internal , refers to computer programs and applications developed and maintained internally by an 's own employees and resources, specifically tailored to meet the unique operational needs of that , as opposed to acquiring ready-made from external vendors. This approach allows businesses to create solutions that integrate seamlessly with their existing workflows, processes, and data systems, ensuring a high degree of customization and alignment with requirements. One of the primary advantages of in-house software development is the enhanced control it provides over the entire lifecycle, from to deployment and updates, enabling organizations to protect sensitive and maintain without relying on third-party access. Additionally, internal teams can foster better communication and collaboration, leading to solutions that precisely reflect the company's culture, core competencies, and strategic goals, while potentially distinguishing the organization from competitors through unique features. However, this model often involves significant challenges, including higher upfront and ongoing costs for hiring skilled developers, , and training, as well as longer development timelines due to limited internal expertise and the need for comprehensive testing. Organizations must also manage risks such as talent retention and issues, particularly in rapidly evolving technological landscapes. In practice, the decision to pursue in-house software development depends on factors like the complexity of needs, available , and long-term strategic priorities, often contrasting with alternatives like or off-the-shelf products that may offer quicker implementation but less flexibility. For instance, in sectors requiring strict , such as or healthcare, in-house approaches are frequently preferred to mitigate risks associated with external providers. Overall, while in-house software empowers greater and tailored solutions, it demands robust to balance its benefits against inherent resource demands.

Definition and Overview

Definition

In-house software refers to computer programs and applications that are developed, owned, and maintained entirely by an 's internal resources for exclusive use within that organization, without involvement from external vendors or reliance on third-party licensing. This approach contrasts with off-the-shelf or outsourced solutions, emphasizing self-sufficiency in creating tools tailored to the entity's operational needs. The practice emerged prominently in the and amid the rise of mainframe computing in large corporations, where businesses required bespoke applications to handle complex and automation tasks that generic software could not adequately address. During this era, companies like banks and manufacturers invested in internal programming teams to build custom systems using languages such as , adapting them to specific workflows on hardware like IBM's System/360 mainframes. Core attributes of in-house software include its status, whereby the organization retains full rights and restricts access to internal users only, preventing external distribution or . It is inherently customized to align with unique processes, such as inventory management or financial reporting, ensuring seamless integration without the limitations of standardized products. Unlike , in-house solutions are not designed for sale or broad market availability, focusing instead on long-term internal efficiency. While contexts typically emphasize fully internal development, certain tax jurisdictions like classify software commissioned from external parties as in-house if developed mainly for the entity's internal use.

Key Characteristics

In-house software is characterized by full internal ownership of the source code by the developing organization, granting complete rights without reliance on external vendors. This ownership enables unrestricted access and modifications to the code, eliminating licensing fees and allowing the organization to adapt the software indefinitely to evolving needs. A defining trait is the high degree of customization possible, as the software can be precisely tailored to the organization's niche requirements, including seamless integration with existing legacy systems. Internal development teams maintain control over design and implementation decisions, ensuring alignment with specific operational workflows. In-house software is typically and confidential, with kept entirely internal and never released publicly, which preserves secrecy and supports competitive advantages through unique, non-replicable features. This closed nature contrasts with open-source alternatives and reinforces organizational control over sensitive intellectual assets. Deployment of in-house software often depends on the organization's internal , commonly utilizing on-premises servers to maintain autonomy from external providers. This setup allows for direct management of hardware and network resources but requires robust internal support for maintenance and scalability.

Development Process

Planning and Requirements Gathering

The planning and requirements gathering phase in in-house software development is crucial for aligning the software with an organization's unique internal needs, ensuring that the project addresses specific operational challenges before resources are committed to implementation. This phase begins with identifying and documenting requirements through systematic , which helps capture diverse perspectives to avoid misalignment with business processes. Stakeholder involvement is a foundational element, encompassing end-users, department managers, IT staff, and executives who interact with or benefit from the software. Techniques such as structured interviews, workshops, and surveys are employed to elicit needs, with end-users providing insights into daily workflows to ensure the software supports seamless integration into existing business processes. For instance, in developing an internal inventory management tool, interviews might reveal requirements for real-time data syncing with warehouse operations. This collaborative approach mitigates the risk of overlooked needs, as stakeholders are prioritized based on their potential impact, categorizing them as critical (e.g., primary users) or minor (e.g., indirect approvers). Following stakeholder input, a evaluates the project's viability across multiple dimensions, including technical feasibility to determine if current technologies can support the proposed features, availability to assess internal team capacity, and economic analysis projecting (ROI) through cost-benefit models. In in-house contexts, this often involves reviewing existing to confirm , such as whether legacy systems can accommodate new modules without major overhauls. Quantitative ROI projections might estimate payback periods based on efficiency gains, like reducing manual reporting time by 40% in an internal analytics tool, helping organizations decide whether to proceed or adjust scope. The phase culminates in creating detailed specifications that outline functional requirements—describing what the software must do, such as generating customizable user interfaces for internal reporting dashboards—and non-functional requirements, which specify how it performs, including performance benchmarks like processing queries in under two seconds or ensuring 99.9% uptime for mission-critical operations. These specifications serve as a , ensuring from needs to technical deliverables. Risk assessment during this phase focuses on internal dependencies, identifying potential issues like compatibility with existing hardware or integration challenges with proprietary systems, using standardized processes to prioritize and mitigate threats early. For example, assessments might evaluate the risk of data migration failures from outdated servers, applying qualitative scales (low to high) and mitigation strategies such as pilot prototyping. This proactive step, guided by established frameworks, minimizes disruptions to internal operations.

Implementation and Testing

In the implementation phase of in-house software development, internal teams engage in coding activities that translate design specifications into functional code, often using programming languages and tools aligned with the organization's existing technology stack. For enterprise applications, languages such as are commonly selected for their robustness in handling large-scale systems, while tools like integrated development environments (IDEs) facilitate code writing, debugging, and . This phase typically involves dividing the project into smaller tasks, building prototypes, and incorporating interfaces like APIs to ensure compatibility with internal infrastructure. Iterative development models, such as Agile, are frequently adapted for in-house teams to enable continuous refinement through internal feedback loops. These adaptations emphasize short iterations where teams identify issues, implement user stories instead of exhaustive , and conduct retrospectives to evaluate progress and adjust processes. In internal settings, Agile promotes among cross-functional teams of around a dozen members, allowing for and alignment with organizational needs without rigid external constraints. This approach ensures that development remains responsive to evolving internal requirements gathered earlier in the process. Testing protocols form a critical component of in-house software assurance, encompassing multiple levels to verify quality before deployment. focuses on individual code modules or functions to confirm their isolated functionality, often automated for efficiency in pipelines. then examines how these modules interact within the broader system, such as database connections or service communications, to detect compatibility issues in the . User acceptance testing (UAT), conducted by internal staff, simulates real-world usage to validate that the software meets business objectives and user expectations, providing a final gate before rollout. Deployment strategies for in-house software prioritize controlled rollouts to minimize operational disruptions in live internal systems. Phased rollouts, also known as incremental or deployments, involve releasing the software in successive stages—starting with core functionalities for a limited user group—allowing teams to gather feedback, address issues, and ensure stability before full adoption. This method reduces risk by enabling early detection of problems in mission-critical applications and supports user acclimation without halting business processes. Complementary approaches, like canary or rolling deployments, further refine this by gradually shifting traffic to the new version across servers, maintaining zero in enterprise infrastructures.

Advantages

Customization and Integration

In-house software development allows organizations to embed tailored logic that aligns precisely with unique operational requirements, such as custom algorithms for adapted to a company's specific dynamics. This level of specificity ensures that the software addresses niche processes without incorporating extraneous features found in off-the-shelf alternatives. A core advantage lies in the deep integration capabilities of in-house solutions with existing internal databases, legacy systems, and third-party tools, which minimizes data silos and facilitates real-time across the organization. Unlike vendor software with limited options, in-house development permits full control over integration choices, enabling seamless connectivity to databases or specialized hardware. This connectivity supports unified data flows, such as linking systems directly to inventory databases for instantaneous updates, thereby enhancing decision-making efficiency. Furthermore, in-house software supports iterative refinements driven by internal feedback loops, allowing rapid adjustments without the delays associated with external vendor negotiations. Development teams can incorporate evolving business insights, such as modifying user interfaces to accommodate department-specific workflows—like streamlined dashboards for teams versus detailed reporting views for —ensuring the software remains agile and relevant over time. This ongoing adaptability fosters a responsive environment where refinements can be prototyped and deployed based on direct user input, promoting sustained alignment with organizational goals.

Enhanced Security and Control

One key advantage of in-house software development lies in the full access to , which enables organizations to implement custom measures tailored to their specific internal data policies. For instance, developers can integrate bespoke protocols, such as advanced SSL/TLS configurations, directly into the application to ensure confidentiality aligns with proprietary requirements. This approach allows for the early incorporation of source code scanners during the development lifecycle, facilitating the detection and remediation of flaws before deployment. In-house software also minimizes external vulnerabilities by eliminating reliance on third-party codebases or vendor-managed updates, thereby reducing the exposed to outside threats. Internal teams can enforce strict coding standards and conduct comprehensive without the risks associated with unvetted external components. Furthermore, in-house development provides centralized control over access permissions, which can be audited internally to ensure adherence to regulations such as GDPR for handling sensitive data. Organizations maintain granular oversight of user roles and authentication mechanisms, allowing for real-time adjustments and thorough compliance reviews without external dependencies. This internal governance supports the creation of immutable audit logs and version controls that facilitate regulatory traceability. Finally, the internal nature of in-house software enables rapid responses to emerging threats, as teams can deploy patches and mitigations without awaiting vendor timelines. For example, security updates can be rolled out in as little as five days for critical vulnerabilities, leveraging in-house processes like and automated tools. This agility enhances overall system resilience against internal and evolving risks.

Disadvantages

High Initial and Ongoing Costs

Developing in-house software involves substantial upfront costs, primarily driven by personnel expenses, acquisition, and employee preparation. Salaries for a typical of 5-10 software engineers average between $665,000 and $1.33 million annually, based on the of $133,080 per developer as reported by the U.S. in May 2024. Hardware procurement, including high-performance computers, servers, and development tools, adds an initial outlay of $5,000 to $15,000 per team member, potentially totaling $25,000 to $150,000 for a mid-sized . Training costs for and skill enhancement further contribute, often amounting to several thousand dollars per developer in the first year to ensure proficiency in specialized technologies and methodologies. Ongoing expenses represent a significant portion of the total , as organizations must independently manage updates, bug fixes, and upkeep without support. Industry benchmarks indicate that annual costs typically range from 15% to 20% of the initial development budget, encompassing corrective fixes, adaptive changes to new environments, and perfective enhancements to meet evolving business needs. For a project with a $1 million development cost, this translates to $150,000 to $200,000 yearly, with much of the burden falling on internal IT staff for patches and adjustments. These recurring outlays can accumulate to 60% or more of the software's lifecycle expenses, underscoring the long-term financial commitment required. Hidden costs, such as opportunity costs from reallocating internal talent, exacerbate the financial strain by diverting resources from functions like revenue-generating activities. When employees are pulled into , the foregone productivity in their primary roles can equate to thousands of hours annually; for instance, onboarding a single developer may incur up to $5,100 in lost output based on fully loaded hourly rates. This redirection amplifies overall expenses, as resource demands for in-house projects often strain existing budgets without immediate returns. analysis for large-scale in-house initiatives typically reveals a 2-3 year horizon before savings from customization offset initial investments, assuming steady utilization and minimal overruns.

Resource and Expertise Demands

Developing in-house software requires organizations to recruit specialized internal talent, such as full-stack developers who are proficient in the company's specific stack, to ensure alignment with systems and needs. This demand for niche expertise is intensified by persistent skill gaps in areas like , AI integration, and cybersecurity, where 87% of senior executives report their companies are unprepared to address emerging shortages. In competitive IT markets, hiring such professionals often involves extended timelines, with processes from initial contact to offer extending beyond 90 days in many cases, complicating efforts to build robust internal teams. Existing staff must undergo significant to support development and tasks, adding considerable overhead to in-house initiatives. Programs like targeted upskilling accelerators, which can span three months and involve online modules, workshops, and apprenticeships, are essential to bridge gaps in technical proficiency, particularly for non-technical employees adapting to roles in software lifecycle . These efforts address common deficiencies, including outdated skills affecting 46% of workforces and lack of hands-on experience impacting 43%, but they require ongoing investment in customized learning pathways to maintain . Such not only elevates internal capabilities but also ties into broader hiring costs, as organizations balance upskilling current employees against recruiting external specialists. Scalability poses further challenges during periods of , where rapid expansion of in-house teams is hindered by hiring delays in a fiercely competitive talent market. For instance, regions like anticipate a need for 780,000 additional tech specialists by 2026, yet supply constraints and prolonged recruitment cycles limit organizations' ability to respond swiftly to project surges. This bottleneck is exacerbated by the need for candidates who possess both technical acumen and company-specific knowledge, making it difficult to scale development efforts without compromising or timelines. A critical in in-house software development arises from knowledge silos, where expertise becomes concentrated among key personnel, leading to project disruptions if those individuals depart. IT functions often fragment into isolated groups by development stages or applications, fostering silos that impede collaboration and . The loss of such personnel can result in the erosion of agile capabilities, like , especially in environments with talent retention challenges due to limited career growth opportunities, thereby heightening to operational setbacks.

Comparison to Alternatives

Versus Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software

(COTS) software refers to pre-built applications licensed from vendors, enabling rapid deployment for standard business functions such as productivity tools like , which supports document creation and collaboration without the need for extensive internal coding. In contrast, in-house software development involves creating solutions entirely within an , allowing for a precise alignment with unique operational requirements but demanding significant upfront investment in time and resources. While COTS offers advantages in speed and reduced initial development effort—often cutting coding, debugging, and phases by leveraging vendor-maintained code— it introduces dependencies on external vendors for functionality and release schedules, potentially leading to feature mismatches or integration challenges that do not perfectly suit specialized workflows. In-house development provides full customization and control, enabling tailored features like proprietary algorithms in a custom () system, but it requires comprehensive internal processes from requirements gathering to testing, often resulting in longer timelines and higher risks of project overruns. Vendor-provided updates in COTS can ensure access to the latest patches and enhancements, though they may disrupt existing integrations or impose mandatory changes, whereas in-house teams maintain autonomy over updates but bear the ongoing burden of . From a cost perspective, typically presents lower entry barriers through subscription or licensing fees—spreading development costs across multiple users and potentially saving up to 50% compared to builds—making it suitable for common needs like systems where off-the-shelf solutions suffice. In-house development, however, is capital-intensive, with higher initial and sustainment costs due to internal , though it avoids recurring fees and supports long-term strategic advantages for processes. Decision factors in choosing between them often prioritize COTS for and in domains (selected in 50% of surveyed cases for such reasons), while in-house prevails for , , and customization in unique scenarios (chosen in 41% of cases). Overall, COTS suits standardized applications with minimal adaptation needs, whereas in-house excels in environments demanding exact-fit solutions despite elevated demands.

Versus Outsourced Development

In-house software development and outsourced development represent two primary approaches to creating solutions, differing significantly in terms of control, , and . In outsourced development, organizations delegate project execution to third-party vendors, often through contractual agreements with specialized firms such as or , which can accelerate timelines by leveraging established expertise and larger workforces. However, this delegation introduces risks, including potential (IP) leaks, as external teams handle sensitive code and designs, necessitating robust non-disclosure agreements and legal safeguards to mitigate exposure. A key distinction lies in control and knowledge retention. In-house teams maintain direct oversight throughout the development lifecycle, fostering deeper institutional knowledge and alignment with organizational goals, which enhances long-term adaptability and reduces dependency on external parties. In contrast, promotes scalability by allowing rapid access to global talent pools, enabling companies to expand or contract teams without internal hiring constraints, though it often incurs communication overhead due to differences, cultural variances, and the need for frequent coordination via tools like video conferencing or platforms. As of 2025, trends such as nearshoring to nearby regions and AI-powered tools are increasingly used to address these challenges and improve . Cost dynamics further highlight the trade-offs. Outsourcing typically offers short-term savings, with labor costs 40-70% lower in regions like or due to wage disparities, allowing firms to avoid upfront investments in and . Conversely, in-house development builds enduring assets through accumulated expertise and reusable codebases, potentially yielding greater returns over time despite higher initial and ongoing expenses for salaries and benefits. Decision factors often revolve around project sensitivity and strategic importance. In-house development is preferred for applications involving sensitive , such as financial systems or algorithms, where full control minimizes vulnerabilities and ensures compliance. suits non-core applications, like auxiliary tools or seasonal projects, where speed and cost efficiency outweigh the need for internal ownership.

Examples and Case Studies

Notable Industry Examples

In the technology sector, has developed Borg, an in-house cluster management system designed to orchestrate workloads across massive data centers, handling hundreds of thousands of jobs from diverse applications to enable efficient operations. This system, built internally since the early 2000s, underpins much of Google's infrastructure by abstracting and . In banking, maintains custom in-house trading platforms, including algorithmic tools like LOXM, which executes high-frequency equity trades with optimized pricing and speed based on real-time market data analysis. These platforms, originally crafted for internal use by the firm's trading desks, support algorithmic finance by integrating and automated execution across , including equities. The retail industry exemplifies in-house software through 's proprietary inventory management system, powered by AI to forecast demand, optimize stock levels, and streamline across its global network of stores and distribution centers. Developed by Walmart Global Tech, this system processes vast datasets in real time to minimize out-of-stocks and reduce waste, integrating with for end-to-end visibility. In healthcare, Corporation produces its (EHR) software entirely in-house, providing a vendor solution that hospitals customize through internal adaptations for specific workflows like patient data integration and clinical decision support. In contrast, providers like develop internal customizations and extensions to vendor-based systems, such as their Epic EHR implementation and Mayo Clinic Platform initiatives, to enhance portals for secure access to records, appointment scheduling, and data-driven health insights.

Real-World Success and Failure Cases

One prominent success story in in-house software development is Netflix's creation of Chaos Monkey, a tool introduced in 2011 to randomly terminate instances in its production environment, thereby simulating infrastructure failures and testing system resilience. This approach forced engineering teams to build fault-tolerant services, resulting in more robust that could gracefully handle disruptions without widespread outages. For instance, during an Amazon Web Services (AWS) maintenance event on September 25, 2014, which affected 10% of Netflix's servers, the platform experienced no significant downtime, attributing this stability to ongoing chaos testing that had identified and mitigated potential failure points. The tool's success is measured by enhanced operational efficiency, with Netflix reporting overall system availability improvements that supported scaling to millions of users without proportional increases in support costs. In contrast, a notable failure occurred at in August , when the deployment of an untested update to its in-house automated trading software, known as SMARS (Smart Market Access Routing System), triggered erroneous trades across 148 stocks on the . The glitch caused the system to flood the market with unintended buy orders, executing over 4 million trades in 45 minutes and resulting in a $440 million loss—nearly one-third of the firm's equity. This incident stemmed from inadequate , including the reuse of dormant code without proper validation in a simulated environment mirroring production conditions. The financial devastation led to reputational harm and forced Knight Capital's acquisition by Getco LLC later that year, highlighting the risks of rushed in-house deployments. Key lessons from these cases underscore the value of iterative testing in successes like Chaos Monkey, where continuous simulation of failures encouraged proactive resilience-building and cultural shifts toward in recovery processes. Conversely, the Knight Capital debacle emphasizes the critical need for rigorous , such as comprehensive pre-deployment testing and mechanisms, to prevent cascading errors in high-stakes environments. These outcomes illustrate that while in-house software can yield significant returns on through tailored efficiency gains, failures often incur irreversible financial and without stringent safeguards.

Management and Best Practices

Intellectual Property Considerations

In-house software developed by employees is typically owned by the employer under the work-for-hire doctrine, which is enshrined in Section 201(b) of the U.S. Act, treating the employer as the author for copyright purposes when the work is created within the scope of employment. Similar principles apply in many other jurisdictions, though the specifics vary by country. To protect this , organizations employ strategies such as requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that bind them to confidentiality obligations regarding proprietary code and processes. classifications further safeguard non-public elements like and by implementing restricted access protocols and documentation controls, preventing unauthorized disclosure. For innovative components, such as unique algorithms, patenting provides exclusive rights against infringement, though it requires public disclosure of the invention. A significant risk arises from departing employees who may retain of the software's or , potentially leading to inadvertent or intentional replication at new employers. Mitigation involves strict access controls, such as role-based permissions and immediate revocation of system access upon termination, coupled with exit interviews to reinforce ongoing duties. Organizations often use internal license terms to reinforce IP boundaries for their in-house software, explicitly limiting deployment to company operations, prohibiting external distribution or , and defining permissible uses such as internal testing and deployment while barring resale or sharing with third parties.

Maintenance and Scalability Strategies

Maintaining in-house software requires structured update cycles to address evolving needs and prevent degradation. systems, such as , enable teams to track modifications, manage branches for parallel development, and revert changes if issues arise, thereby supporting efficient collaboration and reducing errors during updates. Scheduled audits, including regular bug detection and performance evaluations, form a core part of this process; these involve to verify that updates do not introduce new defects and impact analysis to assess ripple effects across the . According to IEEE guidelines on , such practices ensure corrective, adaptive, and perfective updates are systematically planned and executed, minimizing and extending the software's lifespan. To achieve scalability, in-house software benefits from modular design principles, where the system is divided into independent components that can be developed, tested, and scaled separately. This approach allows organizations to add new features or enhance specific modules without necessitating a complete rewrite, promoting flexibility as business requirements grow. Complementing this, cloud migration strategies enable seamless expansion by shifting on-premises applications to environments, providing elastic resource provisioning that adjusts to demand fluctuations—such as increased user loads—while optimizing costs through pay-as-you-use models. For instance, migrating to platforms like AWS supports horizontal scaling via auto-scaling groups, ensuring performance without proportional infrastructure investments. Team strategies play a pivotal in sustaining maintenance efforts, with dedicated —such as maintenance engineers or specialists—assigned to monitor systems, handle routine updates, and coordinate releases. To mitigate risks from personnel turnover, protocols are implemented, including sessions where experienced developers mentor juniors on codebase intricacies and best practices, alongside comprehensive and regular cross-training workshops. Research from IEEE highlights that such methods, particularly in distributed teams, facilitate effective transmission of , reducing dependency on individuals and enhancing overall team resilience. Metrics for evaluating maintenance and scalability success focus on reliability and adaptability, with uptime targets commonly set at 99.9% (allowing less than 9 hours of annual ) for enterprise-grade in-house systems to meet service-level objectives. These benchmarks, often defined in service-level agreements, measure the software's operational availability and recovery capabilities, such as mean time to recovery. Additionally, adaptability is gauged by the system's capacity to integrate changes—tracked via update frequency and post-deployment metrics—ensuring the software remains aligned with organizational without excessive rework.

References

  1. https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume141/number3/haider-2016-ijca-909578.pdf
  2. https://futurbyte.co/blog/pros-and-cons-of-in-house-software-development/
  3. https://purgesoft.com/blogs/in-house-vs-outsourcing-software-development
  4. https://www.g2.com/glossary/in-house-definition
  5. https://ethw.org/Software_Industry
  6. https://solutionshub.epam.com/blog/post/proprietary-software-definition-examples
  7. https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/depreciating-assets-guide-2020/in-house-software
  8. https://www.ato.gov.au/in-housesoftware
  9. https://www.wohlin.eu/jss-2016.pdf
  10. https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/2536523/2011InformSoftwTechnolStol.pdf
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220773068_A_Comparison_of_the_Reliability_Growth_of_Open_Source_and_In-House_Software
  12. https://www.ifi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:3fd4da15-79bf-4870-90d0-f251a7d1a1a8/GlinzWieringa2007.pdf
  13. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7958469/
  14. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5150/2019sp/slides/4-feasibility.pdf
  15. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5501191/
  16. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/functional-and-non-functional-requirements-specification-and-types/
  17. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/16085/6932/
  18. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1540/2280/
  19. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/sdlc
  20. https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/opinion/Agile-characteristics-for-internal-software-development-teams
  21. https://www.atlassian.com/continuous-delivery/software-testing/types-of-software-testing
  22. https://teachingagile.com/sdlc/articles/phased-deployment-sdlc
  23. https://www.apwide.com/8-deployment-strategies-explained-and-compared/
  24. https://610486.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/610486/inhouse-vs-packaged-software-integrify-eBook.pdf
  25. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/07/29/building-an-in-house-solution-vs-buying-software-pros-and-cons-to-consider/
  26. https://www.coconutsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Build-vs-Buy-SD.pdf
  27. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2020/01/07/is-bespoke-software-still-an-option-in-an-age-of-countless-off-the-shelf-solutions/
  28. https://download.microsoft.com/download/8/1/6/816C597A-5592-4867-A0A6-A0181703CD59/Microsoft_Press_eBook_TheSecurityDevelopmentLifecycle_PDF.pdf
  29. https://www.ion247.com/insights/the-benefits-of-custom-software-development-for-regulated-industries/
  30. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm
  31. https://mitrix.io/blog/the-real-cost-of-in-house-development-what-you-need-to-know/
  32. https://www.scnsoft.com/software-development/maintenance-and-support
  33. https://ventionteams.com/enterprise/software-maintenance-costs
  34. https://decode.agency/article/hidden-costs-hiring-in-house-developers/
  35. https://www.baytechconsulting.com/blog/cfos-guide-to-calculating-the-roi-of-custom-software-development-2025
  36. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/tech-and-ai/our-insights/tech-talent-tectonics-ten-new-realities-for-finding-keeping-and-developing-talent
  37. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/we-are-all-techies-now-digital-skill-building-for-the-future
  38. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/implementing-agile-ways-of-working-in-it-to-improve-citizen-experience
  39. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/885111
  40. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/journals/J83.pdf
  41. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=jitim
  42. https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/mgt_guide_sftwrmaint.pdf
  43. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1184192/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  44. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/10/05/the-pros-and-cons-of-software-development-outsourcing-during-a-digital-transformation/
  45. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/1404991
  46. https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/21/information-technology-outsourcing-risks-technology-oxford.html
  47. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2022/09/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-software-outsourcing-for-startups/
  48. https://thescimus.com/blog/5-trends-in-software-development-outsourcing-for-2025/
  49. https://codewave.com/insights/offshore-it-outsourcing-benefits-challenges/
  50. https://research.google/pubs/large-scale-cluster-management-at-google-with-borg/
  51. https://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgan-takes-ai-use-to-the-next-level-2017-8
  52. https://www.jpmorgan.com/markets/execute/fxalgos
  53. https://tech.walmart.com/content/walmart-global-tech/en_us/blog/post/walmarts-ai-powered-inventory-system-brightens-the-holidays.html
  54. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethjoseph/2024/02/26/epics-antitrust-paradox-who-should-control-the-levers-of-healthcare-innovation/
  55. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-completes-installation-of-epic-electronic-health-record/
  56. https://www.mayoclinicplatform.org/
  57. https://netflixtechblog.com/chaos-monkey-kill-one-instance-at-random-and-test-your-resilience-4d9a6c9c2f5d
  58. https://techblog.netflix.com/2015/09/chaos-engineering-upgraded.html
  59. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/
  60. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1406255/000119312512385075/d411008dex991.htm
  61. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
  62. https://www.inta.org/works-made-for-hire-review-of-legislation-and-practice/
  63. https://cpl.thalesgroup.com/software-monetization/protecting-software-intellectual-property
  64. https://www.ceb.com/intellectual-property-protection-corporate-strategies/
  65. https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/what-is-a-trade-secret-and-how-can-you-protect-it
  66. https://www.fr.com/insights/ip-law-essentials/protect-trade-secrets-loss-departing-employees/
  67. https://www.tcdi.com/securing-the-exit-gates-strategies-to-prevent-employee-data-theft/
  68. https://aaronhall.com/protecting-internal-software-through-license-terms/
  69. https://www.computer.org/resources/software-maintenance
  70. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/system-design/inroduction-to-modularity-and-interfaces-in-system-design/
  71. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/cloud-migration/
  72. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7883308
  73. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10057022
  74. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/reliability/metrics
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.