Purpose: The purpose of this report is to find out whether or not it is beneficial for a municipality to design building projects in-house in an early stage. The goal for the final thesis is to analyze pros and cons of wide in-house competence within the municipal building process, and how its perceived to impact the process and end result. The goal is answered using three main questions: What is the economical difference between a project executed in Nässjö municipality compared to a similar project in another municipality? How do key participants within the projects experience the process? How do the tenants in the projects feel about the result in regard to its area of use? Method: The method being used for this project consists partly of a qualitative section with semi structured interviews, and partly of document analysis using economic data from two projects. Findings: The result of the study is that it can both be beneficial and not, depending on a few factors. If these factors are met, in-house competence in the design stage can be seen as beneficial for a municipality. If few, or none, of the factors are met there is no specific reason or advantage for a municipality to have in-house competence. The factors are: The size of the municipality Property stock Basis for projects The municipality’s resources Contracting form How the municipality wants to develop knowledge in the staff and invest inwide or narrow competences. Implications: For a municipality to benefit from working with in-house competence,they should follow the factors presented in the result. The conclusion is that a municipality should work in a way that works for them, and not based on what is more beneficial. Limitations: This final thesis is limited to only two municipalities with only one project form each. The report is also limited to the design stage, and the interviews did not include contractors.