Make-or-buy: when to build an internal workplace team.
Once a workplace investment goes above a few million euros, organisations start asking whether to build an internal workplace function or to engage external advisors. The honest answer depends on three variables that most organisations don't measure. This article describes the make-or-buy decision and where the cost lines actually cross.
What internal teams actually do well
Internal workplace teams excel at three things: institutional memory, day-to-day operations, and continuous relationship management with the business. Those are real advantages, and they don't transfer easily to external parties.
They don't, however, excel at one-off strategic transformations. A team optimised for steady-state operations is rarely the right team to lead a once-a-decade headquarters move — and asking them to do so usually compromises both jobs.
The three variables that drive the decision
The make-or-buy line moves on three variables:
- Portfolio size — total m² under management and number of locations.
- Activity frequency — how often the portfolio is materially reshaped (moves, transformations, expansions).
- Strategic intensity — whether the workplace is treated as a strategic asset or as overhead.
Where the lines cross
As a rough framework: below 10,000 m² and one material activity every five years, an internal team rarely pays back. Between 10,000 and 50,000 m² with regular activity, a lean internal team plus external strategic support is usually optimal. Above 50,000 m² with continuous activity, a full internal team becomes economical — though even there, strategic transformations often still benefit from external leadership.
These thresholds are indicative, not prescriptive. Strategic intensity can shift them materially in either direction.
The hybrid model that works
Most organisations of any scale converge on a hybrid: internal team owns operations, strategy and supplier management; external partners are engaged for strategic transformations and specialist advisory on multi-year decisions. The split works because it matches what each side does well — and because the internal team is freed to operate, not to manage a once-a-decade trauma.
See our approach to workplace strategy for how external strategic support sits alongside internal teams without crowding them out.
Common failure modes
Two failures recur. First: building an internal team that's strong on operations and then asking it to lead a strategic transformation it's not set up for. Second: outsourcing operations to an integrated FM provider and losing the institutional knowledge needed for the next strategic decision. The hybrid model exists because both extremes carry real cost.
Frequently asked questions
Should we hire a Head of Real Estate or work with an external partner?
+
For portfolios above roughly 15,000 m² with strategic intensity, yes — and pair them with external strategic support for once-a-decade decisions. Below that scale, external strategic advisory plus operational FM usually outperforms an in-house hire.
Can an FM provider take the strategic work?
+
Rarely well. FM providers are optimised for operational excellence — strategic transformations have different incentives and risks, and FM providers are not the right party to lead them.
How do we know if the internal team is the right size?
+
Measure the share of time spent on strategy versus operations. Teams spending less than 15% on strategy are operationally over-loaded; teams above 40% are usually under-utilised on the operational side.
Does the make-or-buy decision change with hybrid working?
+
Yes. Hybrid working has increased strategic intensity (continuous reshaping of demand) while reducing total m² — pushing more organisations toward the hybrid model and away from pure internal staffing.
Governance of large workplace projects: who decides what, when
Most workplace projects don't fail on design or budget — they fail on decision-making. A clear governance model is therefore not a formality; it's the lever of the entire trajectory.
Multi-year housing strategy: the document the board should defend by
Most organisations confuse a lease overview with a housing strategy. A real strategy makes a decade of decisions defensible — and replaces ad-hoc bets with a coherent posture.