Agentic coding: why companies will build their own management tool

When code was expensive, buying packaged software was the right decision. When code costs almost nothing, the equation reverses: building your own management tool becomes the most profitable choice.

That is the shift we see happening in the companies we support at Junyr, and it changes how the information system should be thought through.

The old world: buying was the only reasonable option

Until now, developing a management tool in-house did not pay for a company, so in our estimate roughly 99% of them bought packaged software, a business application dedicated to their line of work. That figure is an order of magnitude drawn from our assignments, not a measured statistic.

The choice had its logic, because development was complicated, expensive and out of reach for most organisations. Yet buying was never free. The company paid for:

• the configuration of the tool;
• its implementation;
• the support of the change.

In other words, it financed the adaptation of its own organisation to software designed for others.

The new paradigm: code is almost free

With agentic coding, writing code costs almost nothing, and what stays expensive is the act of producing your own management tool, because it takes internal skills and internal time.

• The build-or-buy reasoning is unchanged: when buying is cheaper, you buy.
• What changed is the price of building, which has fallen far enough for a bespoke tool to cost less than a packaged one plus the adaptation around it.
• From a return-on-investment standpoint, the internal skills and time are a sound investment, and building what you need becomes simple.

The management tool becomes a company asset

A purchased tool is a recurring expense, whereas a bespoke tool is an asset: it enters the company’s balance of assets and can be valued.

• This is what more and more of the companies we support are looking for: a management tool specific to their trade, which belongs to them and increases the value of the business.
• A basic CRM-type tool no longer has a reason to be bought as a packaged product, because it is very easily replicated to measure.
• Building it in-house removes two items the company used to pay for, implementation and configuration, since the software is designed for the company from day one and not the other way round.

What remains: external data

What a company cannot build alone is external data. Every trade has its own, and it is hard or impossible to rebuild internally.

• An M&A firm needs CFNEWS.
• An investment bank needs a very specific bank-feed aggregator, almost impossible to connect by oneself.
• A real-estate agency needs a feed that aggregates property transaction records (DVF), energy performance certificates (DPE) and, above all, other agencies’ listings, not just the public data anyone can reach.

The agency also needs a platform that broadcasts its listings nationwide, so that buyers do not have to browse 150,000 websites.

What remains, then, are two kinds of services: an upstream aggregator that supplies market data, and a downstream aggregator that distributes the company’s products to buyers.

The new information system: an in-house core, specialised services around it

The new information system rests on in-house business tools, built internally by full stack builders who work in 100% AI coding. Our UltraCoding method is what makes that result reachable.

Around this core, the company relies on specialised databases and software for three needs:

• high-performing market data coming in;
• data related to its clients;
• connectors to other systems upstream, and to the distribution platforms of its brands downstream.

The central part, the CRM or the ERP, becomes a tool the company can quite reasonably build in-house, with a team of one to three developers and some support. That sizing is our field estimate, not a benchmark.

That is what we offer at Junyr. We provide the harness and, if needed, the agentic platform: very standard components, offered at a very low cost within our support. Our condition is that the company uses them as the foundation for building its tool of tomorrow.

Infrastructure: is Azure still a good idea in 2026?

The same logic applies to infrastructure: should it be hosted on Azure or in-house? The reasons that justified Azure no longer necessarily hold, because managing an infrastructure can quite well be entrusted to an LLM agent.

By taking it back in-house, the company recovers several things:

• the know-how;
• trust, since the data is hosted at home;
• control of the CPU costs, previously carried by the vendor of the management tool.

An internal platform, run by one person dedicated to infrastructure who works with AI, can manage fairly complete infrastructures for companies of up to 50 to 100 people. Again, this is what we observe in the field, not a measured ceiling.

Companies will hire builders

This shift has a direct consequence on teams: companies will hire builders, in addition to their IT manager (RSI). Their role will be to design, steer and have the internal applications built, within a structured approach.

That approach is roadmap-driven development. The principles are set out in our article on removing Git from the active workflow and in development under guarded decision.

Make the tool an asset

Whether you buy or build, the tool you run your business on should leave you with something you own. If you are considering building your own management tool and turning it into a genuine asset, that is exactly what we support at Junyr.

The ideas in this article, including the share of companies that bought packaged software, the team of one to three developers and the 50 to 100 people an internal platform can serve, are Junyr’s field observations and estimates, not a measured study. The three diagrams are conceptual and carry no data. CFNEWS, DVF and DPE are cited as examples of external data; the article does not rank vendors.