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 | 3.40 |
| Partner | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4.05 |
| Build capability | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3.20 |
Re-test the ranking when a weight or uncertain score changes.
Original InnovationFlow illustration. Example values and software behaviour are explained in this guide; method sources are listed below.
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Options
Define credible make, buy, partner or development routes with the same scope and performance requirement.
Illustrative example
Internal product team, managed platform provider, joint development partner, or phased internal build.
Criteria and evidence
Choose criteria before scoring, define scales and attach evidence. Weighting should reflect strategic priorities rather than desired results.
Illustrative example
Give data control more weight where customer contracts restrict third-party access.
Sensitivity and rationale
Test whether the recommendation changes under plausible assumptions. Record non-quantifiable constraints and the reason for the final choice.
Illustrative example
A partner leads on speed, but an internal build becomes preferable if expected volume doubles.
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.
Practical interpretation guidance from InnovationFlow. Refer to the method sources below for the underlying approach.
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.