TECH STRATEGY — SERVICE SPEC v2025
Most technology decisions get made reactively—a vendor demo here, a developer preference there. Over five years, those decisions compound into a fragmented stack that nobody fully understands and everybody maintains with duct tape. A roadmap isn't a wish list. It's a load-bearing document.
A building without blueprints doesn't collapse on day one. It drifts. Each contractor adds their own interpretation of "load-bearing." Each renovation patches over the last one. Years later, you can't remove a single wall without calling in a structural engineer to figure out what's actually holding the ceiling up. That's what an unplanned technology stack looks like from the inside. And most mid-market companies are living in it right now.
Tools get added to solve immediate problems, not to serve long-term architecture. Three years later you have four overlapping project management platforms, two CRMs with different data, and a Slack channel called #fix-this-later.
Nobody remembers why you chose the current database. The developer who picked the framework left in 2021. The vendor contract auto-renewed for three years without anyone noticing. These are structural liabilities—not minor inconveniences.
Leadership wants "AI-powered" everything. Engineering wants to rewrite the monolith. Sales needs a new CRM. Without a governed roadmap that connects business outcomes to technical decisions, every initiative competes and nothing ships on time.
Should you build the integration or buy a platform? Hire a specialist or use a generalist? Migrate now or run parallel systems? Without a strategic framework and someone who has seen these decisions play out at scale, every choice feels like a coin flip.
Technology strategy isn't about chasing trends. It's about making deliberate, documented, defensible decisions that compound into competitive advantage. Every hour spent debating stack without a governing framework is an hour of drift. Drift is expensive.
No governing architecture document. Decisions are tribal knowledge, not institutional record. When key people leave, the reasoning leaves with them.
Technology roadmap disconnected from business strategy. Engineering builds what it can. Leadership asks for what it wants. Neither speaks the other's language fluently.
Stack sprawl driving up operational overhead. Licensing costs, maintenance burden, and context-switching overhead grow faster than the team's capacity to manage them.
No clear criteria for future technology decisions. Without a defined evaluation framework, every new tool assessment starts from scratch and is vulnerable to bias, salesmanship, and recency.
I bring the same discipline to technology strategy that a civil engineer brings to a site plan: survey the existing conditions first, define the load requirements, then design the structure. No tool gets recommended without understanding what problem it's solving, what it costs to maintain, and how it connects to everything else you're running.
My background spans 10 years of civil engineering and surveying—where every decision is documented, justified, and stamped—followed by 15 years architecting and maintaining enterprise web applications at scale. I hold an MBA with an IT Management concentration and I'm completing a Master of Science in Software Engineering with an AI Engineering focus. I've sat in both the boardroom and the server room. I speak both languages without a translator.
The output isn't a slide deck with arrows and buzzwords. It's a governed technology blueprint: a living document that defines your current architecture, your target state, the sequenced decisions required to get there, and the evaluation criteria for every future technology choice.
| PACKAGE | DELIVERABLES | SCOPE & ENGAGEMENT | STRUCTURAL OUTCOME |
|---|---|---|---|
|
STRATEGY-01
STACK ASSESSMENT
Current State Discovery
DIAGNOSTIC
|
|
Fixed engagement. Remote discovery sessions and async documentation
review. Delivered in 5–7 business days.
|
You know exactly what you have, what it costs, what's redundant, and
where your highest risks are. A factual foundation for every decision that follows.
|
|
STRATEGY-02
TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
Strategic Architecture Blueprint
ROADMAP
|
|
Project-based engagement. Includes Stack Assessment as intake phase.
Total timeline: 3–5 weeks. Final deliverable is a versioned, governed document.
|
A load-bearing strategy document. Every future technology decision has
a governing framework. No more reactive stack choices or undocumented rationale.
|
|
STRATEGY-03
FRACTIONAL CTO
Ongoing Strategic Partnership
PARTNERSHIP
|
|
Monthly retainer. Minimum 3-month engagement. Structured as fractional
executive relationship — CTO-level judgment without full-time overhead.
|
Your technology strategy is actively governed, continuously updated,
and permanently aligned to business outcomes. Decisions stop being reactive. Architecture
compounds over time.
|
"A strategy without a specification
is just a wish list."
I started my career in civil engineering and land surveying—fields where imprecision isn't a bug, it's a lawsuit. Every plan gets stamped. Every decision gets documented. Every measurement gets verified. I carried that discipline into 15 years of enterprise web architecture, and it shows in how I approach technology strategy. I don't recommend what's popular. I recommend what's structurally sound for your specific load.
Most technologists struggle to translate engineering decisions into business language. Most business strategists can't evaluate a technical trade-off with real precision. I operate fluently in both domains. My MBA gives me the framework to connect technology decisions to P&L, risk, and competitive positioning. My engineering background means I can evaluate those decisions at the implementation layer — not just the slide layer.
I'm completing a Master of Science in Software Engineering with an AI Engineering concentration — not because AI is a trend, but because it is becoming a structural layer of enterprise architecture and I intend to be qualified to spec it correctly. Every technology roadmap I build accounts for AI readiness: data structure, model integration, automation feasibility, and governance. Future-proofed by design.
Before you can build a roadmap, you need an honest inventory of where you are. The Stack Assessment is a fixed-scope engagement that gives you a complete picture of your current technology state, its risks, and its costs — with no obligation to proceed further.
If the assessment reveals nothing actionable, you'll know you're in better shape than most. That's still worth knowing.
// SCHEMA: request.type = "stack_assessment" → payload.destination = "draftingdan.com"