Structured technology monitoring across analyst firms (Gartner, Forrester, IDC), academic sources (Stanford HAI, IEEE, ACM), editorial platforms (O'Reilly Radar, ThoughtWorks Tech Radar), and individual thought leaders (Martin Fowler, Paulo Caroli, Gregor Hohpe, Jez Humble). Produces vigilance reports with signals classified by urgency and impact. Use when evaluating technology trends, preparing sector-specific tech intelligence, validating technology choices against current landscape, or when "vigilancia tecnológica", "tech watch", "Gartner", "Forrester", "tech radar", "Stanford HAI", "IEEE", or "tendencias tecnológicas" is mentioned.
Structured monitoring of the technology landscape to inform discovery decisions with up-to-date data on trends, maturity, adoption, and risks of proposed technologies.
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.
| 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) |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Client sector | {sector} |
| Current stack | {technologies} |
| Proposed stack | {technologies} |
| Vigilance horizon | Last 12 months |
| # | 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:
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 |
Sector-specific signals for the client:
| Area | Sector Trend | Source | Implication for Discovery |
|---|---|---|---|
| {area} | {trend} | {source + year} | {direct implication} |
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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | — |
| 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 |
Primary: A-05_Technology_Vigilance_{project}.md
| 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 |
| 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 |
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
endA-05_Technology_Vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.mdA-05_Technology_Vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.html{fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx{fase}_technology-vigilance_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx{fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx| 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.
15f6e4a
Also appears in
since Aug 28, 2026
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.