Lay the firm's own vendor list over the technology landscape map. Fill it from the procurement export and the identity provider's application catalog, not from memory, and record what you found rather than what you intend.
Firm / scope (entities, teams, or funds covered):
Prepared by / date:
Map version and generation date used (from the landscape source note):
Signals file generation date used (from the library's signals summary):
Vendor inventory
- [ ] The procurement or SaaS-management export is the starting list.
- [ ] The identity provider's application catalog was compared against it, and every application missing from the export is added below.
- [ ] Free tiers and the open-source projects someone runs are included.
- [ ] Every vendor is placed in one of the map's 67 categories, or marked "no category" as a finding.
| Vendor | Map category (or "no category") | Layer | Paid / free / open source | Owner | Connected to (hubs and other vendors) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category coverage
Mark each category the firm touches with the number of vendors the firm has in it.
| Category | Firm's count (0 / 1 / several) | Map's vendor count | Reason for several, or for zero | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
- [ ] Every "several" is marked as a consolidation candidate or a deliberate redundancy, with the reason written down.
- [ ] Every "zero" in a category the map tags SMB has a written reason.
- [ ] Vendors that fit no category are listed for a pull request to the library or a decision to retire them.
Hubs
For each of the firm's vendors that the map shows with a high degree: the identity provider, automation platforms, the compliance platform, and observability and paging first.
| Hub vendor | Degree on the map | What the firm has connected to it | What breaks if terms, owner, or API change | Owner who would deal with it | One credible alternative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- [ ] The identity provider's row lists every application in the sign-on catalog, or points to the export that does.
- [ ] Each automation platform's row lists every workflow that runs through it.
- [ ] The three connections the firm depends on most were tested, not read from a directory.
Connections tested / date / result:
Thin categories
For each category with few suppliers on the map that the firm depends on.
| Category | Firm's vendor | Export tested on | Export usable elsewhere? | Second supplier to call | How a change of owner would be noticed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theses by category
For each category the firm depends on, write the thesis the firm holds about that market, the outcome it is buying, and the signal that would change its mind. Take the vendor's position from the library's signals summary: two years by quarter, Form D amounts as filed, announced rounds as stated, stars, stories, and downloads as attention and adoption. Write "none counted" where the summary has nothing; absence is not evidence. Conference presence is recorded in the summary where a directory could be read; where it says "not yet available", leave that cell blank rather than guessing.
| Category | Thesis (what the spend buys down) | Outcome expected (and the measure) | Signal to watch (what would change the thesis) | Vendor is drawing or drawn from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
- [ ] Every category the firm pays into has a thesis, an outcome with a measure named before the next renewal, and a signal, including the categories with nothing counted.
- [ ] Each vendor drawing the money has a price question noted for its renewal; each vendor being drawn from has an owner and roadmap question.
- [ ] Where the thesis rests on a signal the summary could not read (a conference floor, a late filing), that dependence is written down.
Findings
Where the firm can negotiate (crowded categories):
Where the firm is standardized (settled categories):
Where the firm is exposed (hubs and thin categories):
Which of the firm's vendors the market is paying to grow, and which it is not:
Theses the firm would most like to be wrong about, and the signal that would show it:
Gaps in the map worth a pull request:
Sign-off
Reviewed by / date:
Next review trigger (new hub connection, acquisition in a thin category, a filing that moves the largest share in a category the firm depends on, renewal of the largest hub) / date:
This review places the firm's vendors on the map. It does not replace the vendor review for a new purchase or the build, buy, or combine memo for a new capability.