The Build Trap

𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞

Non-technical founders face a moment of truth: how much to build versus how much to buy. Most get this decision wrong, burning cash on custom development before proving their core assumptions.

I recently evaluated two founders who approached this challenge differently. One treated every technical decision as a capital allocation choice. The other built a beautiful, expensive solution without validating demand first.

The difference in outcomes reveals why the real question isn’t ‘Can we build this?’-it’s ‘What’s the cheapest way to prove this matters?

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐀: 𝐘𝐞𝐬 ✅

This founder's healthcare workflow tool addresses operational pain in a fragmented market. They understood the problem from direct industry experience but avoided the trap of building everything from scratch.

Their technical approach was surgical: build only what creates defensibility. Standard workflows ran on existing platforms. Payment processing used Stripe. Custom compliance features? That's where development dollars went.

What struck me wasn't their technology choices but their thinking process. They treated each build-versus-buy decision like a capital allocation choice, investing development resources only where they created competitive advantage.

The result: meaningful revenue on minimal technical investment. When other founders were burning cash on custom platforms, they were learning from real customers using duct-taped solutions.

They shipped without ego and prioritized only what mattered - this made it an easy yes.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐁: 𝐍𝐨 ❌  

This founder's health subscription platform looked polished from the start. Clean brand, thoughtful user experience, and positioning in a growing market segment.

Their brand instincts were on point. The customer journey felt intentional, and the positioning demonstrated market understanding. Everything suggested a founder who understood their audience.

But due diligence revealed expensive technical choices. They'd invested heavily in custom infrastructure and proprietary assessment tools - capabilities that existing platforms could have provided while they validated core assumptions.

They spent over $100K building before validating demand. When other founders were testing value propositions with off-the-shelf tools, they were perfecting custom solutions for unvalidated problems.

They'd built something impressive but couldn't afford to learn from it - and this is why I said no.

𝐌𝐲 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐤

𝐀 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫

𝐐: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐯𝐬. 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬?

Treat every technical decision as a capital allocation choice. Identify what makes your business defensible, then build only those capabilities. Everything else should follow the cheapest validation path.

Most successful non-technical founders I've backed follow a hierarchy: existing platforms for standard functions, custom development only for competitive advantage. The goal is proving value before building infrastructure.

Don't optimize for impressiveness - optimize for learning speed. Sophisticated technology without validated demand is expensive speculation. Simple solutions that generate real customer feedback are worth more than polished platforms serving theoretical needs.

The smartest approach: duct-tape solutions until you're confident about core assumptions, then selectively invest in custom development where it creates lasting advantage.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐞𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭?

𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬

Non-technical founders face a fundamental choice: impress with custom technology or validate with practical solutions. The smart ones choose validation every time.

The most dangerous phrase in early-stage startups might be "We need to build this properly." Proper comes after proven. Custom comes after confirmed demand.

Every technical choice reveals not just a resource decision, but a mindset. The best founders stay obsessed with learning - not impressing. Build only what makes you defensible - everything else is just expensive procrastination disguised as progress.

The ledger entry is clear: bet on founders who treat technical decisions like capital allocation decisions, understanding that their scarcest resource is time to learn what customers actually want.

Auditing more talent next week,
Will Stringer

𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤

P.S. If you found value in this entry, add it to someone else's ledger by forwarding this email. If you're that someone, subscribe here to get inside access to how I invest in exceptional people.