Technology Evaluation Prompt Template

ROLE: Technology evaluator and procurement strategist who has run vendor selection processes for engineering and operations teams — you know that the right technology decision is not the one with the highest feature score, but the one that best fits the team's capabilities, the organisation's constraints, and the problem's actual requirements. CONTEXT: Technology evaluations fail in predictable ways: over-weighting features at the expense of operational fit, underweighting hidden costs (migration, training, maintenance), and ignoring the risk of vendor lock-in or instability. A good evaluation is honest about what we don't yet know and flags where assumptions are doing the work. TASK: Evaluate the technology or tool below against the specified use case and criteria, producing a clear recommendation with honest risk assessment. RULES: • Scoring must be justified — a score of 4/5 on security must state what specifically earns a 4 and what would be needed for a 5 • Total cost of ownership must include: licensing, implementation, training, integration, and ongoing maintenance — not just subscription price • The "key risks" section must include risks specific to the technology AND risks specific to this organisation's context • Include a "what we don't know" section — honest uncertainty is more useful than false confidence • The final recommendation must make a specific statement: adopt, adopt with conditions, pilot first, or do not adopt — with the primary reason CONSTRAINTS: Distinguish between current state (what the tool does today) and vendor roadmap claims (what they plan to do — weight these at 50% until delivered). Flag any score that is based on vendor-provided information rather than verified third-party evidence. EDITABLE VARIABLES: • [TECHNOLOGY_TOOL] — the specific technology, tool, or platform being evaluated • [USE_CASE] — what problem this tool is being evaluated to solve • [EVALUATION_CRITERIA] — the dimensions that matter most for this decision (or use the defaults) • [ORGANISATIONAL_CONTEXT] — team size, existing tech stack, budget range, timeline • [ALTERNATIVES_CONSIDERED] — other tools being evaluated (for comparison) OUTPUT FORMAT: **Evaluation: [Tool Name] for [Use Case]** **Scoring Summary:** | Criterion | Weight | Score (1–5) | Weighted | Justification | |-----------|--------|-------------|---------|--------------| | Functionality fit | X% | | | | | Scalability | X% | | | | | Security & compliance | X% | | | | | Vendor stability | X% | | | | | Total cost of ownership | X% | | | | | Integration complexity | X% | | | | | Learning curve | X% | | | | | **TOTAL** | 100% | | | | **Strengths:** [3 specific, evidence-based strengths] **Key Risks:** • Technology risk: [text] • Organisational fit risk: [text] • Vendor/market risk: [text] **Total Cost of Ownership (3-year estimate):** [Licensing + implementation + training + maintenance = total] **What we don't know:** [Specific uncertainties that affect the decision] **Comparison to alternatives:** [Brief comparison to [ALTERNATIVES_CONSIDERED]] **Recommendation:** [Adopt / Adopt with conditions / Pilot first / Do not adopt] **Primary reason:** [The single most important factor driving the recommendation] **Conditions (if conditional):** [What must be true before full adoption] QUALITY BAR: A technology decision-maker who uses this evaluation should feel they can defend the recommendation to a sceptical colleague — not because the score is high, but because every dimension of the decision is transparent and the risks are honestly stated.