HG Insights|Phoenix

Tech Stack Modernization Map

Walk in with 'your peers switched from Y to X in 2024' instead of generic modernization talk.

Electronics & industrial manufacturing · Observability gap map

Your account is the only peer running a multi-cloud estate with zero observability platform

0 of 5
Named observability platforms confirmed at target
Peers with a named platform: 4 of 4
Target cloud services spend: $581M
Operations Mgmt budget at risk: $73M
Company Platform Adopted First Verified
🎯 Your Account None confirmed —
Peer A (Dell) Splunk · intensity 2,514 2007
Peer B (Lenovo) Dynatrace · intensity 739 2011
Peer C (TSMC) Grafana · verified Mar 2026 2019
Open with this
“Every peer in your revenue band runs a named observability platform — Dell has had Splunk for 18 years. With $581M in cloud spend and zero correlated telemetry, what’s the plan?”

Overview

Your sellers walk into modernization conversations with vague 'industry leaders are moving on' framing. This workflow scores the prospect's stack as Ahead / On-par / Behind across 5 categories (data, security, observability, AI/ML, DevOps) by comparing their HG technographic vendors against a 5-peer cohort — and names the specific peers that already moved off the legacy tools. The opener stops being 'industry trend' and becomes 'Honeywell switched from Cognos to Tableau in 2024.'

Use cases

  • Pre-call wedges your AEs can defend in 30 seconds

    Your sellers need an opener that the buyer can verify in 30 seconds — not a generic 'platforms beat point-solutions' deck. This workflow surfaces specific HG technographic deltas: 'GE moved off Cognos in Aug 2024, Honeywell did it in Q1 2025; you're still on Cognos with intensity 5,107.' Buyer Googles in 30 seconds and confirms. Wedge lands; conversation moves.

  • Champion enablement that survives the CFO red pen

    When your champion forwards your modernization pitch upward, it gets shredded by a CFO who wants peer-anchored evidence, not vendor talking points. This brief gives the champion a Behind-category drill-down with named peers, what they switched from, and HG spend data showing the budget headroom — so the doc survives translation to finance instead of dying in 'we'll consider it.'

View workflow prompt
# Tech Stack Modernization Map

## Parameters

- `{{domain}}` *(required)* — Target company domain HG Insights uses for lookup. Example: `siemens.com`

## Purpose
You are an AE selling modernization into {{domain}}. Output a scorecard that names — by vendor — where the target is ahead, on-par, or behind a modern peer cohort across 5 categories: data, security, observability, AI/ML, and DevOps. The highest-leverage modernization play sits at the top.

## Process
1. **Cohort definition** — call `company_firmographic` for {{domain}} to get industry + revenue. Use `search_companies` (identity only: `companyId`, `companyName`, `domain`) to find candidate peers in the same industry, then call `company_firmographic` on each candidate (pass its `companyId` as `hg_id`, or its `domain`) to get their revenue and keep the 5 within the ±25% revenue band. Note each kept peer's domain and revenue.
2. **Per-category scan** — for each of the 5 categories (data, security, observability, AI/ML, DevOps), call `company_technographic` on {{domain}} AND each peer. List the target's detected vendors and the cohort's top-3 modern equivalents (i.e., the vendors that 2+ peers run that the target doesn't).
3. **Scorecard** — score each category as **Ahead / On-par / Behind** based on:
   - *Vendor recency* (how recently first-seen across the cohort)
   - *Adoption breadth* (how many peers run a given modern vendor)
4. **Behind-category drill-down** — for each *Behind* category, name the specific peers that moved off legacy tools, what they switched FROM (e.g., "Honeywell switched from IBM Cognos to Tableau in 2024"), and why.
5. **Highest-leverage play** — pick the single category where the gap is widest AND the spend is highest. That's the lead-with recommendation.

## Output Format
Markdown with these sections in order:
- `# 🛠 {{domain}} — Tech Stack Modernization Map` (header + cohort line)
- `## Cohort` (5-row table: Peer | Domain | Revenue | Why Comparable)
- `## Scorecard` (5-row table: Category | Target Vendors | Cohort Modern Stack | Score | Gap)
- `## Behind-Category Drill-Downs` (one subsection per Behind category, named-peer switching evidence)
- `## Highest-Leverage Play` (one paragraph: the category, the specific peer precedent, the 2-sentence opening line)

Cite vendors and peers by name in every section.

## Quality Checklist
- Every category in the Scorecard names ≥1 specific vendor on each side (target / cohort)
- Every Behind drill-down cites a named peer + a switched-from vendor + a date when known
- The highest-leverage play references real spend data from `company_spend`, not just vendor counts
- No fabricated peer behavior — if HG can't confirm a switch, say so or omit the peer
- Score rationale (recency vs breadth) is shown in the Scorecard table or in a footnote