The most expensive errors in technology strategies are not made due to ignorance, but due to a lack of prioritization.

Six out of ten technology pilot projects never reach production. Not because the technology was immature, but because no one systematically assessed whether it was solving the right problem. AI, blockchain, quantum computing, Metaverse – the list grows every year. Of this, what does your budget earn – and what does it burn through?

That's precisely why we built the Innovation Radar. A system that analyzes ten years of trend data, separates hype from substance, and delivers clear recommendations for action. No PowerPoint theatre. No buzzword lists. Instead, it's an evidence-based tool for strategic technology decisions.

Your latest technology investment: result or just a headline?

Most companies observe technology trends through conferences, consultant presentations, and LinkedIn posts. The result: a collection of buzzwords without prioritization. Every trend sounds important. None are systematically evaluated.

This leads to two costly mistakes: either you invest too early in technologies that aren't mature yet – and burn through budget on pilot projects that never go into production. Or you react too late – and have to catch up under time pressure and at higher costs. The numbers are brutal. Mentions of AI in our dataset have risen by a factor of 14 since 2017 – from 6 to 86 per year. Anyone who waited in 2022 when the value was 22 faced a '64' signal in 2024 and was two years behind.

At the same time, the Experience Platforms field with 579 mentions shows the highest volume of all categories – but a hype index that significantly exceeds the execution index. Without systematic evaluation, both signals appear the same.

We've seen both of these far too often with our clients. That's why we developed the Innovation Radar.

What 301 charts reveal that a conference keynote cannot

Ten years of data instead of snapshots

Our radar is based on a corpus of 301 analyzed trend charts from ten years (2017–2026). We don't track what's currently being discussed. We track what over the years gains – or loses – significance. This long-term perspective reveals patterns that remain invisible in quarterly analyzes.

For example: Since 2017 mentions of AI have been increased by a factor of 14 – from 6 to 86 per year. This wasn't a short-term spike, but growth that built up over eight years. Bitcoin, on the other hand, shows the most volatile pattern of attention in the entire dataset: zero mentions in 2018 and 2019, then explosive growth to 51 in 2025. Without the long-term perspective, you would treat both technologies the same. With it, you immediately recognize which one is built on a solid foundation.

Two indices: What companies say vs. what they do

Most trend analyzes are echo chambers: they measure what's being talked about and call that insight. Our model is more brutal. It separates what companies announce from what they actually do. This separation is at the heart of the Innovation Radar.

When a technology attracts a lot of attention but has little evidence of implementation, a hype correctionautomatically kicks in. This prevents loud narratives from distorting evaluations. Conversely, the system recognizes technologies that quietly and steadily mature – which are often the most important because they are underestimated.

Why a keynote counts for less than a completed pilot project

Why is this important? We see it in every second strategy project: companies invest millions because their CEO heard an impressive presentation at a conference. No pilot project. No validation. Just a keynote and a budget. That's why we weigh every source by what it actually proves – not by how loudly it sounds:

A completed pilot project with a measurable ROI counts for more than ten press releases. A documented investment decision counts for more than a keynote announcement. This sounds obvious – but it’s the opposite of how most trend analyzes work.

In the following articles, we will use the short form: Evidence A = Results and Implementation (weight ≥ 0.90). Evidence B = Commitment and Intention (weight 0.55–0.75). Evidence C = Predominantly Attention (weight 0.35).

Six fields. Twenty technologies. One question: where do you stand?

The radar organises all 20 technologies into six fields. Each technology receives a clear recommendation for action: ADOPT (ready for production), TRIAL (active piloting), ASSESS (to observe, to act with purpose) or HOLD (Wait and see).

What we consciously don't do

Just as important as what our model does is what it explicitly does not do:

• We don't rank by mention volume alone. 579 Experience Platform mentions do not automatically beat 44 Healthcare mentions.
• We don't use legacy heuristics when current data is missing; instead, we report a gap.
• We do not treat unverified single-source claims as stable evidence, no matter how dramatic they sound.

These conscious exclusions are not a flaw. They are a feature.

And before you think it: Isn't a 10-year radar simply backtesting? In hindsight, every trend looks obvious. Yes – if you only look at the numbers. The added value lies not in historical documentation, but in the patterns that only become visible over years: Which technologies show steady growth despite moderate attention? Which explode and collapse in cycles? Which quietly disappear? These patterns are recognizable in retrospect, but only useful in prospect – and that's exactly what the Radar is built for.

What the Innovation Radar means for your company

If you need to make technology decisions in the next 12 months – and you do – you need a foundation that goes beyond headlines. The Innovation Radar provides just that: An evidence-based, hype-free assessment of which technologies are relevant to your business and which you can safely park.

Companies that pilot early, achieve in automation, treasury settlement and diagnostics cost advantages of 15–30% within 24 months. Latecomers pay more – for the same technology, under greater time pressure, with less internal expertise. Not all six fields are equally important for every industry. A logistics company views robotics differently than a financial service provider. An energy supplier has different priorities than a pharmaceutical company. But the methodology behind it – systematic, data-driven, verifiable – is universally applicable.

The three most dynamic fields — and why we're starting there

In the following articles, we'll dive into the three most dynamic fields: Why AI is the only ADOPT technology in the entire radar, where robotics has already reached cost parity with manual labour and Why the Real Digital Asset Revolution Isn't Bitcoin. The final touch is A synthesis of the five technologies that will change your industry by 2030. But one thing is already certain: Waiting is the most expensive option.