Operations & Sourcing method guide
MvB Scoring Workbench
MvB Scoring Workbench compares in-house and external options using explicit weighted factors.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What MvB Scoring Workbench does
MvB Scoring Workbench compares in-house and external options using explicit weighted factors.
The make-versus-buy scoring workbench compares realistic sourcing options for a defined activity. It provides more detail than an initial portfolio screen and keeps the reasons behind a recommendation visible.
Criteria should reflect the decision context. Cost matters, but so do capability, quality, time, control, knowledge, flexibility, supply risk and the consequences of reversing the choice.
Multi-factor make-or-buy frameworks were developed to move beyond cost-only decisions. The workbench keeps criteria, weights, evidence, scores and rationale inspectable.[1][2]
Scores structure the evidence. Sensitivity and rationale protect against false precision.
| Option | Strategic fit 30% | Capability 25% | Speed 20% | Risk 25% | Weighted result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3.60 |
| Buy | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3.45 |
| Partner | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4.10 |
| Build capability | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3.15 |
Re-test the ranking when a weight or uncertain score changes.
InnovationFlow explanatory schematic, synthesised from the method sources[1][2].
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
When to use it
- For challenged or high-stakes sourcing decisions.
- When a preliminary make-or-buy position needs a more rigorous comparison.
A practical workflow
- 1
Define the subject and credible in-house and external options.
- 2
Select relevant factors and agree their weights before scoring.
- 3
Score each option with evidence, confidence and rationale.
- 4
Review sensitivity and record the recommendation and conditions.
Fictional worked example
Example: sourcing a data platform
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. A service team compares an external platform with an internal build.
Observation:Fast launch and mature operations, but higher dependency.
Implication:Strong early option if exit, access and learning are governed.
Observation:More control, but substantial time and scarce skills are required.
Implication:Justified only if the platform is strategically distinctive.
Observation:Partner now while building architecture and data ownership internally.
Implication:Use roadmap gates to revisit the balance.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1Inspect the evidence behind high-weight criteria.
- 2Run sensitivity checks rather than trusting one total score.
- 3Record contractual, knowledge and transition actions alongside the chosen option.
The interpretation guidance is an InnovationFlow synthesis of[1][2].
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Do not choose weights after seeing the result.
- A weighted total should not hide a critical non-negotiable factor.
References and method basis
- [1]Canez, L.E., Platts, K.W. and Probert, D.R. (2000). Developing a framework for make-or-buy decisions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(11), 1313-1330. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
- [2]Probert, D. (1997). Developing a Make or Buy Strategy for Manufacturing Business. Institution of Electrical Engineers. Source ↗Original method source
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.