The costs and time demands of a homegrown system aren’t just related to the design and build: maintenance needs are ongoing and hard to predict. The only certainty is that money and human capital will be needed to keep your system fit for purpose over time. But there is an alternative to the complex, costly process of building your own Surety system. Read this article to learn about it, and to find a detailed overview of the challenges to consider before building your own Surety platform.  

Don’t Underestimate the Challenges of Building a Surety Platform In-House

Building a homegrown Surety platform may seem like a way to maintain control and customization, but the reality is often far more challenging than expected. The Department of Defense reported that in 2020, IT project spending reached approximately $37 billion, yet only 35% of those projects stayed within budget. Similarly, a study by McKinsey and the BT Centre for Major Programme Management at the University of Oxford found that large IT projects, on average, exceeded budgets by 45%.

Cost is just one concern. Developing an in-house Surety system is an unpredictable process that can demand more time, resources, and expertise than anticipated—without any guarantee of success.

Given that Surety carriers have the option of a proven SaaS solution, it’s crucial to understand the complexities of building a custom platform before deciding if it’s the right path for your organization. Here are key challenges to consider.

Time and Cost Overruns

The goal of building a Surety system is to save time—but software development rarely follows a predictable timeline. As Tom Cargill of Bell Labs famously observed, “The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time.” Accurately estimating the time required to design and build a Surety platform is incredibly difficult, especially for organizations whose primary focus isn’t technology.

This uncertainty makes a strong case for leveraging a SaaS provider that has already invested the time and resources to develop a proven platform, allowing for faster implementation.

Beyond the upfront investment, in-house development often comes with escalating costs. In How Big Things Get Done, Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner analyze a database of 16,000 projects and highlight a striking risk: “Information technology projects have fat tails. Eighteen percent of IT projects have cost overruns above 50% in real terms. And for those projects, the average overrun is 447%.”

Time overruns can also be exacerbated when a Surety carrier has to compete for internal IT resources. Surety is profitable, but is often a small part of an insurance company's GWP, so it can hard for a Surety department to get priority for a costly, complex project like building an in-house platform.

The financial and operational risks of a homegrown system can be far greater than anticipated, making it essential to weigh the benefits of an existing SaaS solution against the uncertainties of in-house development.

User Experience Design

User experience (UX) design is a highly specialized discipline—so much so that entire companies are dedicated solely to perfecting it. Effective UX design requires extensive user research, iterative testing, and continuous feedback loops to ensure an intuitive and efficient interface. Yet, in the development of homegrown systems, UX is often treated as an afterthought rather than a core requirement.

Neglecting UX can have significant consequences. As the recent Datos PAS report highlights, “Newer generations of producers and policyholders have higher expectations for technology and usability and won’t tolerate inefficiencies and poor user experience.” A poorly designed interface that fails to meet user expectations can lead to reduced adoption, workflow inefficiencies, and even complete workarounds as users revert to familiar, manual processes.

In an industry where efficiency, accuracy, and compliance are critical, UX is not just about aesthetics—it directly impacts productivity, system utilization, and long-term success. Designing an intuitive Surety platform requires expertise, testing, and iteration. Without these elements, even the most powerful system risks falling short of its potential.

Scalability, Upgrades and Obsolescence 

Your Surety platform must be built for the future—it needs to scale with transaction volume, adapt to market shifts, and integrate emerging technologies. Achieving this is more complex than it seems. Your development team must not only understand your current business needs but also have the expertise and resources to track industry trends, anticipate emerging challenges, and design for future, yet unknown, requirements.

A platform like Tinubu, with 20+ years of Surety expertise, is built with this long-term vision in mind. Because its core business is dedicated to continuous technological and service innovation, it evolves alongside the industry—ensuring that carriers have access to a system designed not only for today, but for what comes next.

As the Datos PAS report highlights, “A perennial headache for insurers and vendors is the core system upgrade. Expensive, time-consuming, and often viewed as not strategic, the annual or biannual software upgrade is frequently number one on the list of insurers’ gripes with their core administration platform.” Beyond the initial development effort, maintaining a homegrown platform requires continuous iteration to keep pace with industry innovations, regulatory changes, and evolving integrations with other systems. By the time your in-house Surety platform is fully deployed, some of its features may already be outdated—potentially leaving you with a system that requires costly upgrades before it delivers its intended value.

Distracting From Core Business

Whether building or buying, companies invest in Surety systems to improve efficiency, focus on core competencies, and drive revenue—but those benefits only come once the system is fully operational. During development, significant resources—both financial and human capital—are diverted from core business functions. This can create substantial opportunity costs, slow market entry, and strain existing teams.

Even after deployment, the work isn’t over. A Surety platform requires continuous maintenance, rigorous testing, regular updates, and a strong cybersecurity program, all of which demand dedicated personnel and ongoing investment.

Even organizations that plan for these needs often underestimate the administrative burden involved and the extent to which it pulls key team members away from high-value strategic work.

In short, consider whether it benefits you to be a Surety company and a tech company. Before committing to in-house development, it’s worth considering whether a SaaS solution can deliver the capabilities you need without the long-term burden of software ownership.

Failure—It’s a Real Possibility

Investing time and resources into building a Surety system does not guarantee success—in fact, failure is a real possibility. According to Gartner, “more than 70% of recently implemented ERP [core software] initiatives will fail to fully meet their original business use case goals. As many as 25% of these will fail catastrophically.” Developing and maintaining a Surety platform is a massive undertaking, and many companies that excel in their core business find they are not equipped to also function as software developers.

Surety is a highly specialized field, and building a system that truly meets industry needs requires more than technical expertise. Your team must also have deep knowledge of Surety bonds, underwriting, risk assessment, and regulatory requirements. Assembling, training, and maintaining such a team—not to mention defining a long-term product vision—can be an expensive and time-consuming challenge. Before committing to this path, it’s worth evaluating whether a proven SaaS solution could better serve your organization’s needs, reducing risk and accelerating time to value.