# Technology Evaluation Framework

## Evaluation Process

### Phase 1: Requirements Gathering (Week 1)

#### Functional Requirements
- Core features needed
- Integration requirements
- Performance requirements
- Scalability needs
- Security requirements

#### Non-Functional Requirements
- Usability/Developer experience
- Documentation quality
- Community support
- Vendor stability
- Compliance needs

#### Constraints
- Budget limitations
- Timeline constraints
- Team expertise
- Existing technology stack
- Regulatory requirements

### Phase 2: Market Research (Week 1-2)

#### Identify Candidates
1. Industry leaders (Gartner Magic Quadrant)
2. Open-source alternatives
3. Emerging solutions
4. Build vs Buy analysis

#### Initial Filtering
- Eliminate options not meeting hard requirements
- Remove options outside budget
- Focus on 3-5 top candidates

### Phase 3: Deep Evaluation (Week 2-4)

#### Technical Evaluation
- Proof of Concept (PoC)
- Performance benchmarks
- Security assessment
- Integration testing
- Scalability testing

#### Business Evaluation
- Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
- Return on Investment (ROI)
- Vendor assessment
- Risk analysis
- Exit strategy

### Phase 4: Decision (Week 4)

## Evaluation Criteria Matrix

### Technical Criteria (40%)

| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
| **Performance** | 10% | Speed, throughput, latency | 5: Exceeds requirements<br>3: Meets requirements<br>1: Below requirements |
| **Scalability** | 10% | Ability to grow with needs | 5: Linear scalability<br>3: Some limitations<br>1: Hard limits |
| **Reliability** | 8% | Uptime, fault tolerance | 5: 99.99% SLA<br>3: 99.9% SLA<br>1: <99% SLA |
| **Security** | 8% | Security features, compliance | 5: Exceeds standards<br>3: Meets standards<br>1: Concerns exist |
| **Integration** | 4% | API quality, compatibility | 5: Native integration<br>3: Good APIs<br>1: Limited integration |

### Business Criteria (30%)

| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
| **Cost** | 10% | TCO including licenses, operation | 5: Under budget by >20%<br>3: Within budget<br>1: Over budget |
| **ROI** | 8% | Value generation potential | 5: <6 month payback<br>3: <12 month payback<br>1: >24 month payback |
| **Vendor Stability** | 6% | Financial health, market position | 5: Market leader<br>3: Established player<br>1: Startup/uncertain |
| **Support Quality** | 6% | Support availability, SLAs | 5: 24/7 premium support<br>3: Business hours<br>1: Community only |

### Operational Criteria (30%)

| Criterion | Weight | Description | Scoring Guide |
|-----------|--------|-------------|---------------|
| **Ease of Use** | 8% | Learning curve, UX | 5: Intuitive<br>3: Moderate learning<br>1: Steep curve |
| **Documentation** | 7% | Quality, completeness | 5: Excellent docs<br>3: Adequate docs<br>1: Poor docs |
| **Community** | 7% | Size, activity, resources | 5: Large, active<br>3: Moderate<br>1: Small/inactive |
| **Maintenance** | 8% | Operational overhead | 5: Fully managed<br>3: Some maintenance<br>1: High maintenance |

## Vendor Evaluation Template

### Vendor Profile
- **Company Name**:
- **Founded**:
- **Headquarters**:
- **Employees**:
- **Revenue**:
- **Funding** (if applicable):
- **Key Customers**:

### Product Assessment

#### Strengths
- [ ] Market leader position
- [ ] Strong feature set
- [ ] Good performance
- [ ] Excellent support
- [ ] Active development

#### Weaknesses
- [ ] Price point
- [ ] Learning curve
- [ ] Limited customization
- [ ] Vendor lock-in
- [ ] Missing features

#### Opportunities
- [ ] Roadmap alignment
- [ ] Partnership potential
- [ ] Training availability
- [ ] Professional services

#### Threats
- [ ] Competitive alternatives
- [ ] Market changes
- [ ] Technology shifts
- [ ] Acquisition risk

### Financial Analysis

#### Cost Breakdown
| Component | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
|-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
| Licensing | $ | $ | $ | $ |
| Implementation | $ | $ | $ | $ |
| Training | $ | $ | $ | $ |
| Support | $ | $ | $ | $ |
| Infrastructure | $ | $ | $ | $ |
| **Total** | **$** | **$** | **$** | **$** |

#### ROI Calculation
- **Cost Savings**: 
  - Reduced manual work: $/year
  - Efficiency gains: $/year
  - Error reduction: $/year
- **Revenue Impact**:
  - New capabilities: $/year
  - Faster time to market: $/year
- **Payback Period**: X months

### Risk Assessment

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
| Vendor goes out of business | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | Strategy |
| Technology becomes obsolete | | | |
| Integration difficulties | | | |
| Team adoption challenges | | | |
| Budget overrun | | | |
| Performance issues | | | |

## Build vs Buy Decision Framework

### When to Build

**Advantages**:
- Full control over features
- No vendor lock-in
- Potential competitive advantage
- Perfect fit for requirements
- No licensing costs

**Build when**:
- Core business differentiator
- Unique requirements
- Long-term investment
- Have expertise in-house
- No suitable solutions exist

**Hidden Costs**:
- Development time
- Maintenance burden
- Security responsibility
- Documentation needs
- Training requirements

### When to Buy

**Advantages**:
- Faster time to market
- Proven solution
- Vendor support
- Regular updates
- Shared development costs

**Buy when**:
- Commodity functionality
- Standard requirements
- Limited internal resources
- Need quick solution
- Good options available

**Hidden Costs**:
- Customization limits
- Vendor lock-in
- Integration effort
- Training needs
- Scaling costs

### When to Adopt Open Source

**Advantages**:
- No licensing costs
- Community support
- Transparency
- Customizable
- No vendor lock-in

**Adopt when**:
- Strong community exists
- Standard solution needed
- Have technical expertise
- Can contribute back
- Long-term stability needed

**Hidden Costs**:
- Support costs
- Security responsibility
- Upgrade management
- Integration effort
- Potential consulting needs

## Proof of Concept Guidelines

### PoC Scope
1. **Duration**: 2-4 weeks
2. **Team**: 2-3 engineers
3. **Environment**: Isolated/sandbox
4. **Data**: Representative sample

### Success Criteria
- [ ] Core use cases demonstrated
- [ ] Performance benchmarks met
- [ ] Integration points tested
- [ ] Security requirements validated
- [ ] Team feedback positive

### PoC Checklist
- [ ] Environment setup documented
- [ ] Test scenarios defined
- [ ] Metrics collection automated
- [ ] Team training completed
- [ ] Results documented

### PoC Report Template

```markdown
# PoC Report: [Technology Name]

## Executive Summary
- **Recommendation**: [Proceed/Stop/Investigate Further]
- **Confidence Level**: [High/Medium/Low]
- **Key Finding**: [One sentence summary]

## Test Results

### Functional Tests
| Test Case | Result | Notes |
|-----------|--------|-------|
| | Pass/Fail | |

### Performance Tests
| Metric | Target | Actual | Status |
|--------|--------|--------|---------|
| Response Time | <100ms | Xms | ✓/✗ |
| Throughput | >1000 req/s | X req/s | ✓/✗ |
| CPU Usage | <70% | X% | ✓/✗ |
| Memory Usage | <4GB | XGB | ✓/✗ |

### Integration Tests
| System | Status | Effort |
|--------|--------|--------|
| Database | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |
| API Gateway | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |
| Authentication | ✓/✗ | Low/Med/High |

## Team Feedback
- **Ease of Use**: [1-5 rating]
- **Documentation**: [1-5 rating]
- **Would Recommend**: [Yes/No]

## Risks Identified
1. [Risk and mitigation]
2. [Risk and mitigation]

## Next Steps
1. [Action item]
2. [Action item]
```

## Technology Categories

### Development Platforms
- **Languages**: TypeScript, Python, Go, Rust, Java
- **Frameworks**: React, Node.js, Spring, Django, FastAPI
- **Mobile**: React Native, Flutter, Swift, Kotlin
- **Evaluation Focus**: Developer productivity, ecosystem, performance

### Databases
- **SQL**: PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQL Server
- **NoSQL**: MongoDB, Cassandra, DynamoDB
- **NewSQL**: CockroachDB, Vitess, TiDB
- **Evaluation Focus**: Performance, scalability, consistency, operations

### Infrastructure
- **Cloud**: AWS, GCP, Azure
- **Containers**: Docker, Kubernetes, Nomad
- **Serverless**: Lambda, Cloud Functions, Vercel
- **Evaluation Focus**: Cost, scalability, vendor lock-in, operations

### Monitoring & Observability
- **APM**: DataDog, New Relic, AppDynamics
- **Logging**: ELK Stack, Splunk, CloudWatch
- **Metrics**: Prometheus, Grafana, CloudWatch
- **Evaluation Focus**: Coverage, cost, integration, insights

### Security
- **SAST**: Sonarqube, Checkmarx, Veracode
- **DAST**: OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite
- **Secrets**: Vault, AWS Secrets Manager
- **Evaluation Focus**: Coverage, false positives, integration

### DevOps Tools
- **CI/CD**: Jenkins, GitLab CI, GitHub Actions
- **IaC**: Terraform, CloudFormation, Pulumi
- **Configuration**: Ansible, Chef, Puppet
- **Evaluation Focus**: Flexibility, integration, learning curve

## Continuous Evaluation

### Quarterly Reviews
- Technology landscape changes
- Performance against expectations
- Cost optimization opportunities
- Team satisfaction
- Market alternatives

### Annual Assessment
- Full technology stack review
- Vendor relationship evaluation
- Strategic alignment check
- Technical debt assessment
- Roadmap planning

### Deprecation Planning
- Migration strategy
- Timeline definition
- Risk assessment
- Communication plan
- Success metrics

## Decision Documentation

Always document:
1. **Why** the technology was chosen
2. **Who** was involved in the decision
3. **When** the decision was made
4. **What** alternatives were considered
5. **How** success will be measured

Use Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for significant technology choices.
