Worked example

    Worked example: Should we acquire, build, or partner?

    A company must choose how to enter the AI analytics market. Three routes are on the table: acquire a target, build organically, or partner. Here is the complete analysis the Strategic Decision Analyzer produces — every figure below comes from the tool's own calculations.

    The decision

    "Should we acquire TechCorp for $500M or invest in organic R&D expansion? We need to decide within Q2 to capitalise on the emerging AI market opportunity."

    Each option has an upfront cost and a three-point forecast — best case, most likely case and worst case — for the annual cash flow it will generate once running, each with a probability. The three probabilities must sum to 100%.

    The inputs

    Acquire TechCorp

    Cost
    $500M
    Probabilities
    30% / 45% / 25%
    Annual cash flow
    $120M / $80M / $20M

    Organic R&D investment

    Cost
    $200M
    Probabilities
    25% / 50% / 25%
    Annual cash flow
    $100M / $60M / $15M

    Strategic partnership

    Cost
    $50M
    Probabilities
    35% / 40% / 25%
    Annual cash flow
    $70M / $45M / $10M

    Assumptions the tool applies: the default 10% annual discount rate (adjustable in the tool), a 10-year horizon, growth faded from each option's entered rate down to a 2% long-run rate, and a terminal value at the end of the horizon.

    The results

    Acquire TechCorp

    Expected cash flow
    $77.0M/yr
    NPV
    $460M
    Risk score
    6.7 (high)
    Risk-adjusted NPV
    $199M
    ROI
    92%
    Payback
    6.5 years

    Organic R&D investment

    Expected cash flow
    $58.8M/yr
    NPV
    $528M
    Risk score
    5.0 (medium)
    Risk-adjusted NPV
    $317M
    ROI
    264%
    Payback
    3.4 years

    Strategic partnership

    Expected cash flow
    $45.0M/yr
    NPV
    $537M
    Risk score
    5.0 (medium)
    Risk-adjusted NPV
    $322M
    ROI
    1,074%
    Payback
    13 months

    The recommendation

    The strategic partnership ranks first on risk-adjusted value at $322M, narrowly ahead of organic R&D at $317M. The acquisition creates real value — $199M risk- adjusted — but its high integration and financial risk strip 57% off its modelled $460M NPV, and it ties up $500M of capital with a 6.5-year payback.

    Two lessons worth carrying into your own decisions:

    • The partnership's 1,074% ROI is eye-catching, but ROI is not why it wins — it wins on absolute risk-adjusted dollars. If the two smaller options swapped percentages, the ranking on value would still be decided by dollars, not percentages.
    • $322M against $317M is a five-million-dollar margin on a five-hundred-million-dollar decision. That is a genuine tie: shift any probability a little and the leader flips. The honest read is "R&D and partnership are effectively level; acquisition is clearly third" — worth more evidence on the two leaders, not a coin flip.

    Questions people ask

    Should we acquire a company or build the capability ourselves?

    Compare every route on the same basis: the cost, the probability-weighted annual cash flow, and the NPV of that cash flow over a fixed horizon, then apply a risk haircut. In the worked example below, the $500M acquisition produces the largest expected cash flow but the lowest risk-adjusted value, because high integration risk removes 57% of its modelled value.

    Why is the highest-ROI option not always the right one?

    Percentage ROI ignores scale and risk. A $50M partnership earning 1,074% ROI also happens to win on risk-adjusted value here — but if it earned a great percentage on a tiny base while a large programme created far more absolute value, the large programme should still win. Rank on risk-adjusted dollars, then sanity-check percentages.

    This example is illustrative and provides decision support, not professional advice. The figures are sample inputs; your own numbers will produce your own ranking. See the Terms & Conditions.