Deciding between sticking with off-the-shelf software or building something custom in house is a significant decision. In my experience, the key advantage of bringing development in-house is the ability to create a solution aligned with your business needs. When your team understands your specific challenges, they can craft solutions that off-the-shelf solutions often can’t match. That said, this approach does come with the challenge of staffing a capable development team.
There are of course ways to mitigate this. You could build a local team or leverage outsourced options to access a broader talent pool. You could even start with a hybrid model that combines in-house leadership with external development support. Each path has its trade-offs, but if your long-term goals require flexibility and customization, investing in an in-house team is likely the way to go.
A friend is in a similar situation, they work for a small, state government (US) agency and pay for the only solution on the market. My friend often complains about the software and lack of support. The kicker is they’re only paying $25k a year to use it.
I think this is the lens OP should be using. A small team of “in house” developers is going to start at close to $1 million a year (a senior and a couple of mids; adjust for European salaries of course) with someone already on staff managing and defining the product. Does OP have anyone who can lead the effort?
There are of course ways to mitigate this. You could build a local team or leverage outsourced options to access a broader talent pool. You could even start with a hybrid model that combines in-house leadership with external development support. Each path has its trade-offs, but if your long-term goals require flexibility and customization, investing in an in-house team is likely the way to go.