In Formula 1, success is rarely accidental. Teams carefully decide which systems to engineer internally and which to outsource to world-class suppliers.
According to Scott Nice of Label, this philosophy mirrors a rising debate within financial services: what should firms build themselves, and what should they buy from specialist providers?
In motor racing, teams focus their engineering talent on components that genuinely differentiate performance. Aerodynamics, chassis design and race strategy models are the engines of competitive advantage. These areas define who wins championships, so they justify deep R&D investment.
By contrast, equally essential but highly complex parts—such as braking systems, control electronics and gearboxes—are sourced from specialist vendors. While teams could theoretically design these systems in-house, a minor failure can instantly end a race. Their reliability depends on niche expertise, proven redundancy and constant improvement, making outsourced procurement the sensible choice.
Financial institutions increasingly find themselves facing the same strategic crossroads. Firms are encouraged to reserve internal talent for the elements that shape competitive advantage—client experience, product design, decision logic and workflow architecture. These are the areas where innovation, speed and unique intellectual capital matter most.
But when it comes to critical infrastructure such as tax reporting, sanction checks, regulatory reporting or due diligence automation, the risk calculus is different. Regulations like FATCA, CRS and CARF evolve rapidly. Keeping pace demands continuous investment, technical competence and domain clarity. A misconfiguration is not merely inefficient—it can trigger penalties, loss of licence or reputational damage.
This is why banks, asset managers and insurers increasingly buy specialist solutions for document validation, reporting engines, data cleansing and compliance automation. Like F1 teams, they learn that failure in these systems is unacceptable, while in-house development rarely offers efficiency or resilience.
The winners in this model are institutions that allocate people and capital intelligently. They place engineering effort where it “moves the needle” and entrust non-differentiating but mission-critical capabilities to experienced providers.
Ultimately, the build-versus-buy question is not about capability but about rational risk and value creation. In both Formula 1 and financial services, sustainable performance hinges on knowing which systems define advantage—and which demand expert outsourcing.
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
