Technology Vigilance: Proactive Technology Intelligence

Structured monitoring of the technology landscape to inform discovery decisions with up-to-date data on trends, maturity, adoption, and risks of proposed technologies.

Guiding Principle

We do not propose technology based on what we know — we propose based on what the market shows.

Technology vigilance is not "staying up to date." It is a systematic process of signal detection, classification by impact, and connection to ongoing architecture decisions.

Vigilance Philosophy

1. Signals before opinions. A Gartner/Forrester data point or a Stanford HAI paper carries more weight than "I believe that...".
2. Multiple sources, one synthesis. A signal confirmed by 3+ independent sources is a trend. A signal from 1 source is a data point.
3. Vigilance ≠ speculation. We report what sources say, with citation. We do not predict the future.
4. Sector context is mandatory. A trend in FinTech does not apply equally in HealthTech. Always connect to the client's sector.

Source Taxonomy

Tier 1: Analyst Firms (Quantitative, Paid)

Source	Key Product	Type	Access
Gartner	Magic Quadrant, Hype Cycle, Market Guide	Market quadrants, maturity cycles	Paywall (use public summaries + model knowledge)
Forrester	Wave, Total Economic Impact (TEI), Predictions	Vendor evaluations, ROI studies	Paywall (use public summaries)
IDC	MarketScape, FutureScape	Market share, quantitative trends	Paywall (use public summaries)

Tier 2: Open Sources (Qualitative, Free)

Source	Key Product	Type	Access
ThoughtWorks	Technology Radar (biannual)	Adopt/Trial/Assess/Hold per quadrant	Open
O'Reilly	Radar Reports, Trends	Trends by domain	Partially open
CNCF	Landscape, Radar	Cloud-native ecosystem map	Open
GitHub	Octoverse, Trending	Language adoption, trending repos	Open

Tier 3: Academic and Standards

Source	Key Product	Type	Access
Stanford HAI	AI Index Report (annual)	State of the art in AI, adoption metrics	Open
IEEE	Standards, Publications, Spectrum	Technical standards, research	Partial
ACM	Digital Library, CACM	Papers, surveys, state-of-the-art reviews	Partial
arXiv	Preprints	Frontier research	Open

Tier 4: Individual Thought Leaders

Leader	Domain	Key Contribution	Source
Martin Fowler	Architecture, Patterns	Refactoring, Microservices, CI/CD	martinfowler.com
Paulo Caroli	Lean Inception, Discovery	FunRetro, Lean Inception methodology	caroli.org
Gregor Hohpe	Enterprise Integration	Enterprise Integration Patterns, Cloud Strategy	architectelevator.com
Jez Humble	Continuous Delivery, DevOps	Accelerate, DORA metrics	continuousdelivery.com
Sam Newman	Microservices	Building Microservices, Monolith to Microservices	samnewman.io
Kelsey Hightower	Kubernetes, Cloud Native	K8s evangelism, simplification advocacy	Twitter/conf talks
Charity Majors	Observability	Observability Engineering, Honeycomb	charity.wtf
Camille Fournier	Engineering Management	The Manager's Path, org design	elidedbranches.com
Liz Rice	Container Security	Container Security book, eBPF	lizrice.com
Eric Ries	Lean Startup	Build-Measure-Learn, Innovation Accounting	theleanstartup.com

Delivery Structure

S1: Vigilance Context

Parameter	Value
Client sector	{sector}
Current stack	{technologies}
Proposed stack	{technologies}
Vigilance horizon	Last 12 months

S2: Detected Signals

#	Signal	Source(s)	Type	Urgency	Impact	Relevance
S1	{signal}	Gartner 2025 + TW Radar	Confirmed trend	🔴 High	Strategic	Direct
S2	{signal}	Stanford HAI 2025	Emerging data point	🟡 Medium	Tactical	Indirect
S3	{signal}	Fowler blog 2025	Expert opinion	🟢 Low	Informational	Contextual

Urgency classification:

• 🔴 High: Signal that could change the discovery recommendation
• 🟡 Medium: Signal that should be considered in the roadmap
• 🟢 Low: Informational signal for context

S3: Proposed Technology Positioning

For each technology in the proposed scenario:

Technology	Gartner Position	TW Radar	GitHub Trend	CNCF Status	Verdict
{tech1}	Slope of Enlightenment	Adopt	↑ Trending	Graduated	✅ Safe bet
{tech2}	Peak of Inflated Expectations	Trial	→ Stable	Incubating	⚠️ Validate with PoC
{tech3}	Trough of Disillusionment	Assess	↓ Declining	—	🔴 High risk

S4: Sector Benchmark

Sector-specific signals for the client:

Area	Sector Trend	Source	Implication for Discovery
{area}	{trend}	{source + year}	{direct implication}

S5: Relevant Thought Leaders

Opinions and frameworks from thought leaders relevant to the project:

Leader	Relevant Position	Citation/Reference	Application
Martin Fowler	"Microservices prerequisites"	martinfowler.com/bliki/...	Validate prerequisites before migrating
Paulo Caroli	"Lean Inception for discovery"	Lean Inception, Ch. 3	Apply lean inception to sprint 0

S6: Vigilance Recommendations

Priority	Recommendation	Based On	Action
🔴 MUST	{recommendation}	Signal S1	Incorporate into scenario
🟡 SHOULD	{recommendation}	Signal S2	Consider in roadmap
🟢 COULD	{recommendation}	Signal S3	Document for reference

Source Mapping by Industry

Sector	Specialized Sources	Sector Thought Leaders
Banking/FinTech	Gartner Banking, Finastra, SWIFT, BIS	Chris Skinner, Brett King
Health/HealthTech	HIMSS, HL7/FHIR, WHO Digital	Eric Topol
Retail/eCommerce	Gartner Retail, NRF, Shopify Engineering	—
SaaS/Cloud	CNCF, Gartner Cloud, Flexera	Kelsey Hightower, Adrian Cockcroft
Manufacturing	Gartner Manufacturing, Industry 4.0, IIoT	—
Government	Gartner Gov, GovTech, NIST	—
Energy	IEEE Power, IEA, IRENA	—
Telecom	TM Forum, GSMA, 3GPP	—

When to Use

• Phase 0 (Plan): include relevant vigilance signals in discovery plan
• Phase 3 (Scenarios): validate proposed technologies against current landscape
• Phase 3b (Think Tank): feed updated radar data to the 7 Sages
• Standalone: technology landscape assessment for any engagement

When NOT to Use

• Highly constrained environments where technology is fixed (regulatory, legacy lock-in)
• Express discovery (time constraint overrides depth)

Trade-off Matrix

Decision	Enables	Constrains	When to Use
Full multi-source vigilance	Comprehensive landscape view	1-2 days effort	Strategic engagements, technology selection
Analyst-only (Gartner+Forrester)	Quantitative positioning	Misses open-source signals	Enterprise/vendor-driven decisions
Open-source only (TW+CNCF+GitHub)	Free, current	Misses enterprise analyst perspective	Cloud-native/startup contexts
Single thought leader deep-dive	Expert depth on specific topic	Narrow perspective	Targeted technology question

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register — simple, clear, concise, direct)
• Attribution: Expert committee of the MetodologIA Discovery Framework
• Tagline: "Construido por profesionales, potenciado por la red agéntica de MetodologIA."

Validation Gate

• Technology stack positioned against >=2 sources
• Signals classified by urgency and impact
• Sector context connected to general signals
• Thought leader opinions cited with source
• Recommendations linked to specific signals
• Evidence tags: [ANALYST], [ACADEMIC], [OPENSOURCE], [REFERENT]

Output Artifact

Primary: A-05_Technology_Vigilance_{project}.md

Diagrams (Mermaid)

• quadrantChart: technology positioning (maturity x adoption)
• timeline: signal detection timeline

Casos Borde

Caso	Estrategia de Manejo
All analyst sources are behind paywalls and no public summaries exist for the requested technology	Use Tier 2 (ThoughtWorks Radar, CNCF, GitHub Octoverse) and Tier 4 (thought leaders) as primary sources; flag all findings as [OPENSOURCE] or [REFERENT]; recommend client purchase analyst access for validation
Technology is so new that no analyst firm has positioned it (pre-hype cycle)	Use academic sources (arXiv, IEEE, ACM) and GitHub trending; classify as "Emerging Signal — insufficient data for positioning"; recommend PoC-based validation
Client's sector has no specialized analyst coverage (niche industry)	Map to the closest covered sector; document the mapping rationale; flag all sector-specific conclusions as [INFERENCIA] with the parent sector cited
Conflicting signals across sources (e.g., Gartner says "Adopt", ThoughtWorks says "Hold")	Report both positions with full citation; analyze the disagreement (different evaluation criteria, different time horizons); recommend the client define their own evaluation weight set

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Decision	Alternativa Descartada	Justificacion
Require minimum 2 independent sources to classify a signal as "trend"	Accept single-source signals as trends	Single-source signals carry high bias risk; the 2-source minimum forces corroboration and filters noise from genuine shifts
Include thought leader opinions as Tier 4 (lowest evidence weight)	Exclude individual opinions entirely	Thought leaders often signal shifts 12-18 months before analyst firms; their value is early detection, not confirmation
Always connect vigilance signals to the client's specific sector	Produce sector-agnostic technology reports	Sector-agnostic reports produce "interesting but irrelevant" outputs; sector connection is what transforms information into actionable intelligence

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Technology Vigilance"]
        A["Signal Detection"] --> B["Source Triangulation"]
        B --> C["Urgency Classification"]
        C --> D["Sector Contextualization"]
        D --> E["Vigilance Recommendations"]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        F["Client Sector"] --> D
        G["Current Stack"] --> A
        H["Proposed Stack"] --> A
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        E --> I["Technology Positioning Table"]
        E --> J["Sector Benchmark Report"]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        K["dynamic-sme"] -.-> D
        L["scenario-analysis"] -.-> E
        M["multidimensional-feasibility"] -.-> B
    end

Output Templates

Markdown (default)

• Filename: A-05_Technology_Vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.md
• Structure: TL;DR > Vigilance Context > Detected Signals table > Technology Positioning > Sector Benchmark > Thought Leader References > Recommendations > Mermaid quadrantChart

HTML

• Filename: A-05_Technology_Vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.html
• Structure: MetodologIA Design System v4; interactive signal table with urgency color coding; embedded Mermaid quadrant and timeline; collapsible source citations

DOCX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx
• Generado con python-docx, Design System MetodologIA v5. Portada con logo y metadata del proyecto, TOC automático, encabezados/pies de página con marca. Tablas con zebra striping. Tipografía: Poppins para encabezados (navy), Montserrat para cuerpo, acentos gold.

XLSX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_technology-vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
• Generado con openpyxl y MetodologIA Design System v5. Encabezados con fondo navy y texto Poppins blanco, formato condicional por urgencia de señal (🔴/🟡/🟢) y veredicto de tecnología, auto-filtros en todas las columnas, valores calculados sin fórmulas. Hojas: Señales Detectadas, Posicionamiento de Tecnologías, Benchmark Sectorial, Thought Leaders, Recomendaciones.

PPTX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
• Generado con python-pptx y MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master con gradiente navy, títulos en Poppins, cuerpo en Montserrat, acentos gold. Máx 20 slides versión ejecutiva / 30 versión técnica. Notas del orador con referencias de evidencia por slide. Slides sugeridos: portada, contexto de vigilancia, señales detectadas (tabla con semáforo de urgencia), posicionamiento de tecnologías propuestas (quadrant chart), benchmark sectorial, thought leaders relevantes, recomendaciones priorizadas (MUST/SHOULD/COULD).

Evaluacion

Dimension	Peso	Criterio
Trigger Accuracy	10%	Descripcion activa triggers correctos sin falsos positivos
Completeness	25%	Todos los entregables cubren el dominio sin huecos
Clarity	20%	Instrucciones ejecutables sin ambiguedad
Robustness	20%	Maneja edge cases y variantes de input
Efficiency	10%	Proceso no tiene pasos redundantes
Value Density	15%	Cada seccion aporta valor practico directo

Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.

---