This is a decision guide, not a ranking, and it is published by a firm that sells one of the two options in it. Both paths are held to the same questions below, and neither is scored or declared the winner, because the honest answer depends on your internal capacity, your data, and how much rework you could absorb. Costs are described in kind rather than in figures: consulting scopes are quoted per engagement and internal time varies by team, so any figure printed here would be invented.
01Who owns the work. Both paths need one accountable owner for workflow decisions, configuration, data, testing, and training. Name that person first, then check honestly whether they have the hours the work requires.
02What the work actually involves. Ask a consultant for a written phase plan — discovery, configuration, migration, testing, training, cutover, acceptance criteria — and recognize that the DIY path means writing and running that same plan internally.
03What each path costs. Weigh a written consulting scope against internal hours, the delay before the platform is trusted, and the cost of reconfiguring later. No figures appear on this page because both sides depend entirely on your scope.
04Which risks you can absorb. DIY concentrates the risk of misconfiguration and data problems on your team; a consultant takes on part of that risk for a fee. Decide from that trade-off, not from the fact that a consulting firm published the page.
