Brief · Use case · Corporate Development
Build, Partner or Buy.
LiveDecision MemoDecide whether to build, partner or acquire a capability, scored on time to market, cost, control and integration risk, with the one fact that would change the choice.
Build, Partner or Buy is a ready-made use case for Corporate Development. It ships under the Decision Memo template.
For corporate development and strategy leads weighing an inorganic move. You get a recommended route, a scored comparison that includes doing nothing, the sequence of gates and the risks most likely to sink it. Market and deal facts are cited or marked as gaps.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
How should a mid-sized pharmaceutical company obtain a digital therapeutics capability: build it internally, partner with an established developer, or acquire one? The memo also scores doing nothing.
The three routes on the table
The memo scores each route on the same five criteria, and puts doing nothing beside them, so the committee sees what each route costs in time, control and risk.
| Route | What it asks of you | It fits when | What the committee will test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build internally | Develop the capability with your own teams. The first question is whether your existing resources are relevant to the resources you need to develop.1 | Your engineering, clinical and regulatory skills carry over to software with a medical purpose, and you can wait for the build. | Whether the skills exist in house, and how long the build takes |
| Partner with an established developer | Obtain the capability through a contract, alliance or license. The question is whether an effective relationship with a partner could supply the resources. Data roles have to be settled in the contract: a party that decides the purposes and means of processing with you is a joint controller, and a party that acts only on your instructions is a processor.1,3,4 | A partner can supply what you lack, and you can accept shared control and agree an exit. | Control of the product and the data, the contract terms, and the exit |
| Acquire a developer | Buy the company with its team, product, evidence and regulatory file. The question is whether you need a broad and deep relationship with the provider of the resource.1,2 | The capability is core enough to justify full control, and the target’s regulatory documentation and data can transfer with the deal. | Price, integration risk, and what transfers: the regulatory file, the data, the people |
What the memo does with them
Three questions before the scoring. The memo starts from the authors’ resource pathways framework: are your internal resources relevant to the capability you need, could a partner supply it, and do you need a broad and deep relationship with its provider. It answers each for this capability before it scores the routes.1
A regulatory track record you can check. Software with a medical purpose can be a medical device in the EU, and its classification follows the guidance of the Medical Device Coordination Group. The memo asks which class the product is likely to fall in, whether the route gives you the regulatory file, and what a target or partner would have to show.2
Who controls the data. Under the GDPR, whoever decides why and how personal data are processed is a controller, and a party that processes on someone’s instructions is a processor. The memo says which roles each route creates, because a partner or a target can leave you without control of the data the product depends on.3,4
Five criteria, scored the same way. Time to market, cost, control of the product and the data, integration risk, and access to a proven evidence and regulatory track record. Doing nothing is scored too. The scores are analyst judgment, labeled as such.
How it could fail. The pre-mortem probes the failures this decision invites: a build slower than planned, a partner whose roadmap diverges from yours, key people leaving after an acquisition, or a regulatory file that does not transfer. Each gets an early warning and an owner.
Recommended length
Comprehensive
An acquisition or a partnership is hard to unwind, and integration and regulatory assumptions need explicit tests. Comprehensive adds the table that tests each one.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the memo tests
A Comprehensive memo lists the assumptions that carry the answer, each with a test and a date. A Standard memo carries the main ones in its section on what would change the answer. Examples for this decision:
- The target or partner holds the regulatory documentation the product needs, and it transfers with the deal.
- Your teams can build the missing skills within the plan’s timeline.
- A partner will accept data and exit terms you can live with.
- The capability is core enough to justify the control that building or buying gives you.
Standards, guidance and sources
Choosing the route
- The resource pathways framework from Build, Borrow, or Buy (Capron and Mitchell, 2012): build, borrow through a partner, or buy, decided by three questions about relevance, partnership and relationship depth.1
Regulatory status of the software
- MDCG 2019-11, guidance on the qualification and classification of software under the EU medical devices and in vitro diagnostic regulations. The group has revised the document since October 2019.2
Data roles
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any deal term or market figure without a source, the integration risk most likely to sink the route, whether the regulatory file and the data transfer, and the one fact that would change the choice.
What arrives
- Decision requested
- Recommendation
- Context and framing
- Options considered
- Why this option wins
- What must be true
- What would change the answer
- Risks and the pre-mortem
- Path and what we do not know
What it will not do
It does not value a target or negotiate terms, and it does not replace due diligence, legal advice on the contract, or a data protection assessment.
It does not name partners or targets unless you supply them. It scores the routes, not the companies.
It does not make the decision. The named decider does.
Scores and weights are analyst judgment from an AI specialist, not measurements. They show how the options compare on the criteria you chose; change the weights and the ranking can change.
It is one specialist’s answer. When you need several specialists to disagree in the open, run a Panel.
Facts the specialist could not source appear as gaps. Regulatory fees, review goals, reference prices and probabilities are cited to their sources or left open. Check any figure you will act on against its primary source.
References
- [1] Capron, L. and Mitchell, W. Build, Borrow, or Buy: Solving the Growth Dilemma. Harvard Business Review Press, 2012. Read from the publisher’s and INSEAD’s descriptions; the book was not read.
- [2] Medical Device Coordination Group. MDCG 2019-11: Guidance on qualification and classification of software in Regulation (EU) 2017/745 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746. October 2019. The group has issued a revision; check the current version. The document is not binding and is not a Commission position.
- [3] European Data Protection Board. Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR. Version 2.1, adopted 7 July 2021; minor corrections 20 September 2022.
- [4] European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). The articles on joint controllers (26) and processors (28) are as summarized in the EDPB guidelines; check the text.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.