A few of the reasons, good and bad...
This ought to result in an efficient distribution of resources between writing new code and outsourcing, with minimal NIH.
* we do not underestimate how long or hard it will be to build the new tools
* or support or maintain them
* we know how to value our time and that of others
* we understand our needs and they do not substantially change
I suspect this way of preprocessing the budget into people+tools can be the finance team's effort to exert early biz influence onto where eng resources are being spent.
We are scarcely better than random guesses when converting between engineering cycles, impact, and dollars. 🙃
I've also heard them object "if we spend that 200k to hire a person, the person can build whatever tool we need; if you spend it on a tool, you're stuck with the tool."
If I were running a bigger company I think I would make all new eng managers sit down and calculate/estimate some basic stats, like:
* Add up the hourly $ for an engineer's meetings over a week
* What is the ratio of spend, engineers to production infra?
* What % of your infra budget goes to not-AWS?
* How much infra $ does your biggest user consume?
Most will probably be astonished how much help they need just assembling a decent guess.
Translating back and forth between dev/biz worlds so that each understands the other. That's the gig.