Scan & Sense method guide
Technology Scouting Modes
Technology Scouting records signals, sources and routes through Mine, Target, Scan and Trawl modes.
Beginner-friendly guide · 4 min read
What Technology Scouting Modes does
Technology Scouting records signals, sources and routes through Mine, Target, Scan and Trawl modes.
Technology intelligence combines knowledge already inside the organisation with evidence from outside it. Its four search modes distinguish internal from external sources and a focused search from discovering knowledge or developments the team has not yet identified.
The tool helps teams record how a signal was found, who assessed it, what evidence supports it and where it should go next. This makes scouting a repeatable organisational capability rather than an individual browsing habit.
The four modes come from Cambridge technology-intelligence research. Mine retrieves known internal records; Trawl uncovers internal knowledge that has not been located or made explicit. Target pursues a defined external question; Scan looks for unexpected external developments.[1][2]
Mine and Trawl use internal sources. Target and Scan look outside. Retrieving a known record or pursuing a defined question differs from discovering unlocated knowledge or unexpected change.
Focused (bottom) / exploratory (top)
Internal sources to external sources
Original InnovationFlow illustration. Example values and software behaviour are explained in this guide; method sources are listed below.
Understand the method
The parts in plain language
Mine
Retrieve relevant information from known internal records, libraries or databases.
Illustrative example
Review the company's stored sensor trial reports before commissioning another test.
Trawl
Find knowledge inside the organisation when its location or existence is not yet clear. Make useful tacit knowledge explicit.
Illustrative example
Ask colleagues across sites whether anyone has already tested energy harvesting and record their experience.
Target
Look outside the organisation for a defined technology, question or performance need.
Illustrative example
Interview university groups working on a specified low-power sensing requirement.
Scan
Look externally for unforeseen developments beyond the current search target that could affect the organisation.
Illustrative example
Watch adjacent sectors for unexpected sensing approaches that could change the roadmap.
When to use it
- When technology evidence is arriving through several formal and informal channels.
- When the organisation wants to assess whether its intelligence system is balanced and purposeful.
A practical workflow
- 1
Start from an intelligence need or define the signal being monitored.
- 2
Choose and record the scouting mode, source, scout and evidence.
- 3
Assess relevance, novelty, maturity and confidence.
- 4
Route accepted signals into trend, push/pull, sourcing or roadmap work.
Fictional worked example
Example: finding low-power sensing options
This example is illustrative rather than a reported case. A manufacturer needs sensors that operate for years without routine battery replacement.
Observation:The company holds sensor trial reports in its engineering library.
Implication:Retrieve the recorded results before repeating the work.
Observation:A regional team may have relevant experience that was never filed centrally.
Implication:Find the colleagues involved and capture what they learned.
Observation:Several university groups work on promising materials.
Implication:Run focused interviews against a defined performance brief.
Observation:An adjacent industry reveals an unexpected sensing approach.
Implication:Check its relevance and turn it into a defined investigation if useful.
From analysis to decision
How to interpret the result
- 1Judge a scouting system by decision contribution, not volume of signals.
- 2Keep source, date and collector visible.
- 3Route accepted evidence into trends, technology-demand links, sourcing analysis or roadmap work.
Practical interpretation guidance from InnovationFlow. Refer to the method sources below for the underlying approach.
What a useful output looks like
Common pitfalls
- Do not strip a signal from its source and collection date.
- Separate interesting technology from evidence that affects a decision.
References and method basis
- [1]Mortara, L., Kerr, C., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2009). A toolbox of elements to build Technology Intelligence systems. International Journal of Technology Management, 47(4), 322-345. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
- [2]Kerr, C., Mortara, L., Phaal, R. and Probert, D. (2006). A conceptual model for technology intelligence. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 2(1), 73-93. Source ↗Peer-reviewed research
This guide synthesises the named sources into practical questions for strategy and innovation work. It does not claim that using a tool by itself produces a successful decision.