# 02-Technology Scouting and Feasibility Analysis Workflow

## I. Workflow Overview

```
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 Technology Scouting & Feasibility Analysis                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                             |
|  +----------+   +----------+   +----------+   +----------+                  |
|  |1. Tech    |-->|2. Tech    |-->|3. Feasib-|-->|4. Prototype|             |
|  |  Landscape|   |  Options  |   |  ility    |   |  Validation|             |
|  |  Scan &   |   |  Ident.&  |   |  Multidim |   |  & PoC     |             |
|  |  Benchmark|   |  Screen   |   |  Eval     |   |  Design    |             |
|  +----------+   +----------+   +----------+   +----------+                  |
|       |              |              |              |                        |
|       v              v              v              v                        |
|  +----------+   +----------+   +----------+   +----------+                  |
|  |5. Tech    |-->|6. Integra-|-->|7. Tech   |-->|8. Decision|              |
|  |  Risk     |   |  tion     |   |  Report  |   |  Gate     |              |
|  |  Deep     |   |  Feasib.  |   |  & Rec.  |   |  Review   |              |
|  +----------+   +----------+   +----------+   +----------+                  |
|                                                                             |
|  Core Deliverables: Tech Feasibility Report | Tech-Selection Matrix |     |
|  PoC Plan | Decision Record                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
```

## II. Applicable Scenarios

This workflow guides how to systematically conduct technology scouting and feasibility analysis once business needs are defined. It applies to:

- Technology assessment before introducing new tech (AI / LLM / digital twin / V2X, etc.)
- Build-vs-buy technology-route decisions
- Technology-selection scouting for large platforms / systems
- Feasibility of architecture upgrade / migration

## III. Prerequisites

| Input | Source | Description |
|-------|------|------|
| Business Requirements Specification (BRS) | Phase-01 Step 5 | Functional + non-functional baseline |
| Technical constraints list | Phase-01 Step 6 | Legacy-system / stack limits, etc. |
| Budget envelope | Client / investment dept. | Cost ceiling for options |
| Architecture references | SKILL.md part X | 10 architecture patterns (see [references/05-core-methodology-library](../../references/05-core-methodology-library.md)) |

---

## IV. Detailed Steps

---

### Step 1: Technology Landscape Scan and Benchmark (Weeks 1–2)

**Goal**: Build a candidate technology landscape and benchmark against industry best practice.

**Scan dimensions:**

| Dimension | Scan content | Sources |
|------|------|------|
| Tech trends | Maturity / trajectory / key players in the field | Gartner Hype Cycle / IDC / ThoughtWorks Tech Radar |
| Industry practice | Tech adopted by comparable transport projects | Case studies / industry conferences / whitepapers |
| Vendor ecosystem | Available vendors / products / OSS options | SKILL.md part V vendor landscape ([references/04-transport-tech-vendor-landscape](../../references/04-transport-tech-vendor-landscape.md)) |
| Standardization | Maturity / interoperability of relevant standards | ISO / CEN / NTCIP / DATEX II / IEEE / SAE |
| Tech community | OSS activity / doc quality / talent supply | GitHub / Stack Overflow / tech forums |

**Technology benchmark template:**

```
Tech domain: [AI signal control / V2X / digital twin / ...]
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|          | Option A | Option B | Option C |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Tech route|          |          |          |
| Maturity  |          |          |          |
| Cases     |          |          |          |
| Vendor    |          |          |          |
| Ecosystem |          |          |          |
| Cost band |          |          |          |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
```

---

### Step 2: Technology Options Identification and Screening (Week 2)

**Goal**: Identify candidate options from the landscape and perform an initial screen.

**Identification methods:**

1. **Function-matching**: Reverse-match tech capabilities from requirements
2. **Architecture-deduction**: Deduce the stack from the target architecture
3. **Vendor-scan**: Scan vendor offerings, extract feasible options
4. **OSS-alternative**: Find an open-source alternative for each commercial option

**Initial screen criteria (Go / No-Go):**

| Criterion | Go condition | Weight |
|------|------|:---:|
| Function coverage | Covers ≥80% of core functional needs | Must |
| Tech maturity | TRL ≥ 7 (validated in real projects) | Must |
| Ecosystem compatibility | Integrates with existing stack (not full rip-and-replace) | Must |
| Vendor stability | Vendor ≥3 yrs old / active OSS community | Should |
| Cost feasibility | Estimated TCO within ±30% of budget | Should |
| Team-capability fit | Met by current team or hireable talent | Should |

**Output: Candidate options list (3–5 advance to detailed evaluation)**

---

### Step 3: Multi-Dimensional Feasibility Evaluation (Weeks 2–3)

**Goal**: Deep feasibility evaluation of options that passed the screen.

**Evaluation dimensions and weights:**

| Dimension | Weight | Focus | Score (1–5) |
|------|:---:|------|:---:|
| Function fit | 30% | Coverage / precision vs. BRS | /5 |
| Tech advancement | 15% | Foresight / evolvability / tech-debt risk | /5 |
| Integration complexity | 20% | Effort / interface standardization vs. existing | /5 |
| Performance & scale | 15% | Performance at target scale / elasticity | /5 |
| Security & compliance | 10% | Security / compliance / data protection | /5 |
| O&M complexity | 10% | O&M tooling / monitoring / DR / automation | /5 |

**Detailed evaluation checklist:**

**Function fit (30%):**
- [ ] Core functional coverage (/5)
- [ ] Non-functional satisfaction (/5)
- [ ] Custom-dev effort estimate (person-months)
- [ ] Function gaps & alternatives

**Tech advancement (15%):**
- [ ] Industry recognition of the route
- [ ] Lifecycle stage (growth / maturity / decline)
- [ ] Talent-market supply
- [ ] Clarity of evolution path

**Integration complexity (20%):**
- [ ] API / interface standardization
- [ ] Integration with core systems (ERP / asset mgmt / finance, etc.)
- [ ] Data migration / transformation effort
- [ ] Need for middleware / adapters

**Performance & scale (15%):**
- [ ] Throughput / concurrency / latency vs. SLA
- [ ] Horizontal vs. vertical scaling
- [ ] Performance projection over 3–5 yr growth
- [ ] Historical benchmarks / load-test data

---

### Step 4: Prototype Validation and PoC Design (Weeks 3–4)

**Goal**: Validate key technical risk points via prototype and design the PoC.

**Prototype validation strategy:**

| Risk level | Method | Horizon | Resource |
|:---:|------|:---:|:---:|
| 🔴 High | Full PoC (real data + real environment) | 2–4 wks | High |
| 🟡 Medium | Technical prototype (key scenario + simulated data) | 1–2 wks | Med |
| 🟢 Low | Tech research + proof-of-concept | 3–5 days | Low |

**PoC design template:**

| Dimension | Content |
|------|------|
| PoC goal | [What tech hypothesis to validate] |
| Validation scenarios | [1–3 most critical business scenarios] |
| Test data | [Type / volume / source] |
| Environment | [HW / network / SW / data] |
| Success criteria | [Quantified pass / fail thresholds] |
| Schedule | [Start / milestones / end] |
| Resources | [People / equipment / budget] |

**PoC success-criteria examples:**

| Item | Pass criterion | Measurement |
|------|------|------|
| Signal-control optimization | Avg. delay ↓ ≥15% | Simulation + live-intersection test |
| Platform API latency | P99 < 200 ms | JMeter / Gatling load test |
| Data integration | Integrate 2 legacy systems in ≤3 days | Real integration + data-consistency check |
| HA | No service interruption on single-node failure | Fault-injection test |

---

### Step 5: Technology Risk Deep Evaluation (Week 4)

**Goal**: Deeply evaluate key risks of options and plan mitigation.

**Technology risk categories:**

| Risk category | Typical risk | Assessment | Mitigation |
|------|------|------|------|
| Immature tech | Product / OSS not large-scale validated | TRL / customer reference | PoC / small pilot |
| Vendor lock-in | Deep binding to one vendor's stack | Decoupling / replacement-cost estimate | Open standards / multi-cloud / OSS fallback |
| Performance bottleneck | Insufficient at target scale | Load test / capacity planning | Elastic arch / cache / async |
| Security vuln. | Known vulns in stack | Audit / pen-test / CVE scan | Hardening / patch mgmt / WAF |
| Talent shortage | Hard to hire relevant skills | Talent-market research / training cost | Training / outsource / reduce complexity |
| Tech debt | Short-term fix → high long-term cost | Arch review / code review | Explicit tech-debt budget / periodic refactor |
| Integration failure | Infeasible / too costly to integrate | Interface eval / integration test | Middleware / adapter / gradual replacement |

**Risk matrix:**

| Risk | Likelihood (1–5) | Impact (1–5) | Level | Residual after mitigation | Mitigation cost |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| [Risk 1] | 4 | 5 | 🔴 Extreme | Med | High |
| [Risk 2] | 3 | 4 | 🟠 High | Low | Med |
| ... | | | | | |

---

### Step 6: Integration Feasibility Validation (Weeks 4–5)

**Goal**: Validate integration feasibility of candidate solutions with existing systems.

**Integration feasibility framework:**

| Dimension | Content | Validation |
|------|------|------|
| Data integration | Format / protocol / frequency / quality match | Sample data-connection test |
| API integration | API style (REST / gRPC / MQ) / auth / throttling | API compatibility test |
| Process integration | Seamless business-process handoff | End-to-end process walkthrough |
| Security integration | Auth (SSO / LDAP) / entitlement model unified | Security integration test |
| O&M integration | Monitoring / logs / alerts / CMDB connectable | O&M tool integration test |
| Infrastructure | Cloud / container / network / storage compatible | Infra compatibility check |

**Integration complexity scoring:**

| Score | Definition | Effort |
|:---:|------|:---:|
| 1 | Native support, plug-and-play | <1 wk |
| 2 | Config adaptation, standard interface | 1–2 wks |
| 3 | Adapter / middleware dev needed | 2–4 wks |
| 4 | Deep customization / data-model rework | 1–3 mo |
| 5 | Architectural conflict, major rework | 3 mo+ |

---

### Step 7: Technology Report and Recommendation (Week 5)

**Goal**: Consolidate all evaluations into a feasibility report and recommended solution.

**Technology feasibility report structure:**
```
1. Executive summary (1 page, decision-maker view)
2. Tech background & needs recap
3. Candidate options overview
4. Multi-dimensional evaluation (with scoring matrix)
5. PoC / prototype validation results
6. Tech risks & mitigation
7. Integration feasibility analysis
8. Recommended solution & rationale
   - Primary: [Option A] — [3 core reasons]
   - Fallback: [Option B] — [selection conditions]
9. TCO estimate & resource needs
10. Implementation roadmap suggestion
11. Appendices (detailed data / test results / vendor material)
```

**Recommended-option comparison overview:**

| Dimension | Option A (rec.) | Option B (fallback) | Option C |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Total score | 85 | 78 | 65 |
| Function fit | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
| Tech maturity | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ |
| Integration difficulty | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ |
| TCO (5 yr) | $XX M | $XX M | $XX M |
| Key strengths | [1–2] | [1–2] | [1–2] |
| Key risks | [1–2] | [1–2] | [1–2] |

---

### Step 8: Decision-Gate Review (Weeks 5–6)

**Goal**: Pass a formal decision gate to confirm the tech route and kick off the next phase.

**Decision-gate agenda:**
1. Scouting process recap (5 min)
2. Candidate evaluation results (10 min)
3. Recommended solution detail (15 min)
4. PoC / prototype demo (15 min)
5. Risk & mitigation discussion (10 min)
6. Decision & next steps (10 min)

**Decision options:**
- ✅ **Go**: Approve recommended solution, enter detailed design ([Phase 06](../phase-06-tech-solution-design-and-selection/01-tech-solution-design-workflow.md))
- 🔄 **Recycle**: Need more info / broader evaluation / additional PoC
- ❌ **No-Go**: Not advisable under current conditions; state reason and timing

---

## V. Key Considerations

### 5.1 Technology Selection Principles

1. **Fit over cutting-edge**: The best tech is not necessarily the "most advanced" but the one best matching current needs, team capability, and O&M maturity.
2. **Standardization over customization**: Prefer standards-compliant solutions to cut integration and maintenance cost.
3. **Incremental over disruptive**: Unless the legacy system is wholly unfit, prefer a gradual upgrade path.
4. **Multi-source verification**: Don't trust only the vendor's pitch deck — do customer references, community research, and prototype validation.

### 5.2 Transport-Specific Considerations

- **Real-time demands**: Control-class systems (signals / gates / V2X) are latency-sensitive — evaluate real-time performance closely.
- **Safety Integrity Level**: Systems touching trains / flights / autonomous driving must be assessed for SIL / ASIL.
- **Harsh-environment suitability**: Roadside equipment must meet temperature / ingress / vibration / EMC requirements.
- **Cross-system interoperability**: Transport systems usually must coordinate with sector-regulator / safety / emergency systems.

---

## VI. Deliverables List

| Deliverable | Owner | Due | Recipient |
|------|------|:---:|------|
| Tech landscape scan report | Solution architect | Wk 2 | Tech team |
| Candidate options list (3–5) | Solution architect | Wk 2 | Evaluation team |
| Multi-dimensional feasibility matrix | Solution architect | Wk 3 | Evaluation team |
| PoC plan & validation report | Solution architect + dev | Wk 4 | Tech team |
| Tech risk register | Solution architect | Wk 4 | PMO |
| Integration feasibility report | System architect | Wk 5 | Tech team |
| Tech feasibility report (w/ rec.) | Solution architect | Wk 5 | Decision makers |
| Decision-gate record | Project manager | Wk 6 | Project sponsor |

---

> **Version**: V1.0 | **Date**: 2026-07 | **Applies to**: Transport digital tech scouting & selection decisions
