What's in this article?
Financial institutions face an alarming reality: between 70% and 85% of AI projects fail to meet their objectives or are abandoned before achieving meaningful impact. This staggering failure rate, significantly higher than traditional IT projects, forces executives to confront a critical decision point that will define their institution’s competitive future.
The choice between building AI solutions internally versus purchasing from vendors has become one of the most consequential strategic decisions facing financial services leaders today. With 42% of businesses scrapping most of their AI initiatives as of 2024, understanding why these projects fail and how to navigate the build versus buy decision has never been more urgent.
The Harsh Reality of AI Project Failures
The statistics paint a sobering picture. While traditional IT projects fail at rates of 25-50%, AI implementations in financial services crash at nearly double that rate. Only 30% of AI pilots make it past the experimental stage, leaving billions in investment stranded in proof-of-concept purgatory.
Why Internal AI Projects Collapse
The primary culprits behind these failures cluster around four critical areas:
Data Infrastructure Breakdown dominates the failure landscape, with 38% of organizations citing data privacy, quality, and accessibility issues as primary obstacles. Financial institutions often discover their data exists in isolated silos, lacks proper governance, or simply isn’t clean enough to train effective AI models.
Talent Shortage Crisis affects 32% of organizations attempting internal AI development. The scarcity of experienced AI engineers, data scientists, and machine learning specialists creates bottlenecks that stretch projects beyond viable timelines and budgets.
Budget Overruns and Misallocation plague 28% of internal projects. Initial cost estimates rarely account for the full scope of infrastructure upgrades, talent acquisition, and ongoing maintenance required for successful AI deployment.
Organizational Resistance emerges as a hidden killer, with low user adoption rates and poor business integration undermining even technically sound solutions. Internal teams often build sophisticated models that remain disconnected from actual business workflows.
The Build vs Buy Decision Framework
Smart financial institutions approach this decision through a structured framework that evaluates multiple strategic dimensions:
| Decision Factor | Build Internally | Buy from Vendor |
| Strategic Differentiation | Core competitive advantage requiring unique capabilities | Standard functions like document processing or customer support |
| Data Control Requirements | Highly sensitive data requiring complete in-house control | Acceptable to share data with proper security controls |
| Time to Value | Can invest 18–36 months for customized solution | Need deployment within 3–6 months |
| Talent Availability | Strong AI/ML team with proven track record | Limited internal expertise, prefer vendor support |
| Integration Complexity | Complex legacy systems requiring deep customization | Clean APIs and standard integration patterns sufficient |
| Total Investment Horizon | Long-term value justifies substantial upfront costs | Prefer predictable subscription model |
Success Stories: Learning from Winners
JPMorgan Chase exemplifies successful internal development with their COIN platform, which automates contract intelligence and document review. The bank recognized this capability as core to their competitive advantage and too sensitive for external vendors. However, they strategically buy vendor solutions for less differentiated functions like chatbots.
Wells Fargo built proprietary AI risk-modeling engines to ensure regulatory compliance and maintain competitive differentiation, while purchasing customer interaction AI solutions where speed to market outweighed control benefits.
Financial technology companies like Lili and Public typically favor vendor solutions for customer-facing AI, prioritizing rapid deployment and user experience over technical control.
Critical Success Factors
Organizations that buck the failure trend share common characteristics:
Data Foundation First: Successful implementations begin with comprehensive data quality initiatives and governance frameworks before attempting AI development.
Business-Technology Partnership: Winners ensure business units co-own projects with technical teams, aligning AI outputs with actual operational needs rather than theoretical capabilities.
Pilot-then-Scale Approach: Rather than enterprise-wide deployments, successful organizations prove value through limited-scope pilots before expanding organization-wide.
Change Management Investment: Top performers invest heavily in user training, process redesign, and cultural transformation to ensure AI tools become embedded in daily workflows.
Strategic Recommendations
Modern financial institutions should adopt a hybrid approach rather than rigid build-or-buy thinking. Core differentiating capabilities warrant internal development investment, while standard operational functions benefit from vendor solutions.
The decision matrix should prioritize strategic value over cost optimization. Many failures stem from choosing the cheaper option rather than the strategically appropriate one.
Infrastructure readiness must precede AI implementation decisions. Without modern data platforms, cloud architecture, and integration capabilities, both build and buy strategies face similar failure risks.
Take Control of Your AI Strategy
Successful AI implementation requires moving beyond the false choice between building everything internally or buying everything from vendors. The winning approach involves strategic portfolio thinking: build what differentiates, buy what accelerates, and partner where expertise gaps exist.
Financial institutions ready to break the cycle of AI failure need comprehensive strategic assessments that align technology choices with business objectives. This means evaluating data readiness, talent capabilities, and competitive positioning before committing to specific implementation approaches.
Assess Your AI Readiness Today – ProPair’s strategic assessment framework helps financial institutions identify optimal build-versus-buy decisions based on their unique context, capabilities, and competitive requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do AI projects fail more often than traditional IT projects?
AI projects face additional complexity layers including data quality requirements, model training uncertainties, and integration challenges with existing systems. Unlike traditional software with predictable outcomes, AI solutions require iterative refinement and often behave unpredictably during development.
How long should financial institutions expect AI implementation to take?
Vendor solutions typically deploy within 3–6 months, while internal development projects require 18–36 months. However, both approaches need additional time for user adoption and process integration to achieve meaningful business impact.
What’s the biggest predictor of AI project success?
Data quality and accessibility consistently emerge as the strongest success predictors. Organizations with clean, well-governed data see dramatically higher success rates regardless of build-or-buy decisions.
Should smaller banks always buy rather than build AI solutions?
Not necessarily. While smaller banks often lack internal AI expertise, they may have unique data advantages or customer relationships that warrant custom development. The decision should focus on strategic value rather than organizational size.How do regulatory requirements affect build vs buy decisions?
Regulatory compliance adds complexity to both approaches. Internal development provides more control for audit trails and explainability, while vendor solutions may offer pre-built compliance features but require careful due diligence and ongoing oversight.
