It works in the other direction, too. I've seen (and been in charge of) a depressing number of projects that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of people's time on writing an in-house replacement for a piece of software that cost, at most, tens of thousands of dollars.
My working hypothesis is that management types don't really think the costs are comparable, because licensing fees are an operating expense while in-house development costs are a capital expense. Which is true, but I imagine in-house development is a tricky thing compared to other capital expenses, since the final product generally has zero market value.
My working hypothesis is that management types don't really think the costs are comparable, because licensing fees are an operating expense while in-house development costs are a capital expense. Which is true, but I imagine in-house development is a tricky thing compared to other capital expenses, since the final product generally has zero market value.