How to Respond to "We Handle That In-House"

1. Acknowledge

Respect the internal approach. "That makes sense, a lot of teams start there" acknowledges it without judging it. Do not imply that doing it yourself is primitive or that your tool is obviously better. The person who built the in-house process may be your buyer's best colleague, and your buyer will defend them against any hint of criticism.

2. Clarify

Ask how it works, who owns it, and how much time it takes. Then ask the question that surfaces risk: what happens when that person is away or leaves? Finally, ask whether they would build it the same way today, which gives the buyer permission to admit the process grew rather than being designed. These questions are curious, not critical, and they lead the buyer to the cost themselves.

3. Reframe

Shift from "replace your team" to "give your team back the hours". The in-house process costs a person's time; your product costs money. Compare them honestly: if the owner spends ten hours a week on this and that person's time is worth something, the cost is already there. Reframe the decision as whether that person's hours are better spent on this or on something only they can do.

4. Ask

Ask for a small, non-threatening next step that includes the person who owns the process. "Would it be worth twenty minutes with you and [owner] to compare what you do today with what this would change?" Including them signals you are not trying to replace them. If the buyer refuses to involve them, ask directly whether the in-house approach is something they want to keep, and take the answer.

On a cold call

That makes sense, most teams your size do. Can I ask how it works at the moment? Is it a person and a process, or a tool someone built? [Listen.] Okay. The reason I ask is that the teams I talk to usually find it costs more than they thought once they count the hours, but some genuinely have it covered. Would it be worth fifteen minutes to work out which one you are? If it's covered, I'll say so.

On a discovery call

Understood. Tell me how it works today: who owns it, and roughly how much of their week does it take? [Listen.] And what happens when [owner] is on holiday or moves on? [Listen.] That's useful. One more: if you were setting this up from scratch today, would you build it the same way, or is it more that it grew? I ask because the answer usually tells me whether this is something you'd want to change.

After a demo

I hear you. You've now seen what we'd do, so you're in a good position to compare. Where does the in-house approach do something ours wouldn't? [Listen.] Fair. And where would ours save [owner] time they're spending now? [Listen.] If that's roughly [hours] a week, that's the real cost of in-house, and it's worth comparing against the price honestly. Would it help to have [owner] on the next call so they can tell me where I'm wrong?

Late in the deal

I understand, and I know [owner] has put a lot into the current setup. I'm not trying to replace them; I'm trying to give them back [hours] a week for the things only they can do. If the concern is that they'll feel pushed out, let's address that directly: what would their role look like with this in place? If it's that the in-house version really does something ours can't, tell me what, and we'll see whether that's a reason to stop or a reason to phase.

By email

That makes sense. I'm not going to tell you a tool beats a team that knows your business. One question, if you're willing: how many hours a week does the in-house approach take, and what happens when the person who owns it is unavailable? If the answer is "not many" and "nothing", you're right to keep it. If it's "more than we'd like" and "it stops", it might be worth a short comparison. Either way, I'd rather know.