Build-vs-Buy-vs-Partner Review

Critically test the quality, consistency and readiness of Build-vs-Buy-vs-Partner Review. The objective is to remove ambiguity around which capabilities should be built, bought, partnered or deferred, give the founder a decision-ready output, and make it clear whether the venture should progress, repeat the task with stronger evidence, escalate to expert support, or move into a linked stage.

Bertie or a programme manager assigns Build-vs-Buy-vs-Partner Review when the venture needs a decision-ready output for this group. Typical triggers include group-gate reviews, evidence gaps identified by the co-pilot or founder request.

validated problem evidence; target user; solution concept; technical constraints; current product artefacts; existing artefact to review; specific context for which capabilities should be built, bought, partnered or deferred.

1. 1Inventory Core Venture Capabilities and Architectural Requirementsexpand_more

   Audit the target product architecture, functional requirements, and operational capabilities needed to deliver the venture's value proposition. Collate all existing technical documentation, cost estimates, and vendor research into a centralised review matrix.

   Objective

   Completing this action establishes a comprehensive baseline of every technical and operational capability required for the MVP. It ensures the evaluation is based on exhaustive capability mapping rather than ad-hoc technical preferences.

   What's expected

   The founder must deliver a structured capability inventory detailing every functional component, data requirement, and integration point. This must be backed by documented user workflows, technical dependencies, and clear operational criteria.

   Consultant stress-test · 5 questions

   1. 1.What technical or operational capabilities have you excluded from this inventory, and why are you confident they are not critical for the MVP?
   2. 2.How did you establish the baseline performance and security criteria for each capability on this list?
   3. 3.Where is the empirical evidence that your defined capabilities align directly with core user value rather than secondary feature requests?
   4. 4.How have you validated that the architectural dependencies between these listed capabilities are accurately mapped?
   5. 5.Why did you select this specific taxonomy to categorise your technical requirements across the venture?

   Open action arrow_forward
2. 2Categorise Capabilities Across Build Buy Partner Defer Pathwaysexpand_more
3. 3Stress Test Categorisations Against Venture Strategy and Constraintsexpand_more
4. 4Pinpoint Architectural Contradictions and Key Delivery Risksexpand_more
5. 5Design Target Experiments and Mitigating Corrective Actionsexpand_more
6. 6Formulate Final Governance Verdict and Updated Venture Roadmapexpand_more

• A data-room asset titled Build-vs-Buy-vs-Partner Review
• A review note with a verdict, evidence gaps, risks, recommended corrections and a clear continue / repeat / escalate decision
• It should update the venture DNA with specific evidence or decisions about which capabilities should be built, bought, partnered or deferred, create a visible milestone in the founder journey, and generate one or more recommended next tasks

A mentor or evaluator can review the output at the group gate. Programme managers can require an advisor checkpoint before Bertie moves the venture forward.

Draft your output and let Bertie review it