← Go back

The Economics of Toolification

Why More Tools ≠ More Clarity

We are living through an economic anomaly.

Software creation, once gated by capital and engineering talent, is now virtually free. Thanks to AI code generation and no-code platforms, the marginal cost of developing digital tools has collapsed. What once required funding, a dev team, and months of planning can now be produced in a weekend by a single person with a good prompt.

This is not just a technical revolution. It’s a market event: a supply-side explosion of software.

At the same time, on the demand side, AI has become ambient. Every layer of human–computer interaction—individuals, teams, organizations, governments—is now touched by it. From personal productivity apps to enterprise copilots, the cultural expectation is that every friction deserves a tool, and that tool might as well be smart.

This dual force—zero-cost creation and universal demand—has created a perfect storm: an era of overproduction, oversaturation, and overwhelming fragmentation. And from that storm emerges a new economic pathology:

Toolification.

I. From Scarcity to Saturation

There was a time when building a tool meant making a bet.

During the early SaaS boom, creating software was risky and expensive. Each product had to justify its existence—technically, financially, and architecturally. This constraint bred discipline. Products were opinionated, integrated deeply with user needs, and designed with care. Even when they failed, their failure was often structural, not superficial.

But today, the calculus has flipped.

You don’t need a company to build a tool. You need an idea and access to ChatGPT. You don’t need a roadmap. You just need to describe what you want, try a few prompts, and ship the MVP. There are no marginal costs, no technical gatekeeping, and often no architectural consequences—at least not right away.

The result is a tool for every bump.

A dashboard to watch your dashboards. A plugin to translate your Notion board into a Slack thread. A new AI wrapper every week that slightly improves on last week’s wrapper. The explosion is not just horizontal—across domains—but vertical: micro-tools built for micro-problems, each contributing to macro-confusion.

II. The New Economics of Software

1. Creation Outpaces Comprehension

When creation becomes easier than integration, teams will default to building.

This is not a moral failing. It’s an economic one. If spinning up a tool is faster than understanding or redesigning a system, you get local wins at the cost of systemic clarity. It’s a rational choice—until it isn’t.

The hidden cost? Coherence debt. Every unintegrated tool becomes a liability disguised as a productivity gain.

2. Integration is Expensive, Duplication is Cheap

Toolification thrives because duplication is easier than coordination.

If a tool doesn’t work well across teams, it’s often simpler to build a new one than to resolve the friction. Over time, the cost of aligning architectures outweighs the perceived benefit. So everyone builds their own version.

This produces “epistemic inflation”: more dashboards, more logic fragments, more representations—each buying less clarity than the last.

3. Incentives Reward Activity, Not Architecture

In a venture ecosystem obsessed with velocity, tools become outputs. The more you ship, the more progress you appear to make. But few incentives reward coherence, sustainability, or slow-system redesign.

From inside the team, this feels like progress. From outside, it’s a house of tiny bridges—every group solving the same problem with a slightly different tool.

When capital rewards visible growth and tooling is the easiest visible signal, toolification becomes a business model, not just a side effect.

III. The Toolification Flywheel

We can now sketch a crude flywheel of this economic pattern:

1. Friction arises. A team or individual faces a constraint, inefficiency, or unmet need.
2. Tool is created or adopted. With AI and no-code, this is fast and low-cost.
3. Immediate relief is achieved. The new tool solves a local problem—for now.
4. Tool adds structural weight. New data schema, new logic layer, new dependencies.
5. Friction returns elsewhere. Because the underlying system wasn’t redesigned, the problem migrates.
6. Another tool is added. And the cycle repeats—faster each time.

This is the Toolification Loop—a behavioral economy of surface fixes that accumulate as structural debt.

IV. The Macroeconomic Picture

Zoom out, and you begin to see the full architecture:

• Supply pressure: The AI-era enables everyone to be a software creator. But without architectural training, creation becomes interface-first, system-last.
• Demand pressure: Organizations are overwhelmed by complexity. Rather than slow down, they outsource cognition to tools—each one a bandaid that multiplies wounds elsewhere.
• Cultural drift: In a world where “there should be an app for that” becomes “there should be a prompt for that,” the very act of not building a tool starts to feel like neglect.

This is late-stage SaaS—not in the sense that SaaS is dying, but that the service model has fragmented into micro-services, micro-tools, and increasingly incoherent software ecosystems.

V. The Real Scarcity: Architecture

Toolification is not just about overuse. It’s about undercare.

We are not thinking about tools as components of an ecosystem. We are treating them as independent fixes, ignoring the cognitive and infrastructural load they create.

In this world, architecture becomes the rare skill. Not the ability to code or automate, but to align, unify, and structure intelligence across a living system.

This is the economic inversion of our time:

Intelligence is abundant. Clarity is expensive.

VI. What Comes Next

Toolification will not stop. The incentives are too strong, the means too easy, the problems too many.

But we can start to shift the conversation.

We can track coherence as a metric.

We can recognize architecture as strategy.

We can reframe “shipping fast” to include systems that actually stay fast.

And above all, we can name what’s happening.

Because sometimes, the first step toward clarity is just realizing:

You don’t need another tool.

You need to understand the system you already have.