artifacts/standard-named

Vendor & Tooling Decisions Through the Continuity Lens

artifacts/standard-named/20260622__CONTINUITY-OFFICE__TRAINING__OPERATING-MODEL-AND-LEADERSHIP__v1__vendor-and-tooling-decisions-through-the-continuity-lens.md

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

--- catalog: "Free Training Catalog" training_id: "018" title: "Vendor & Tooling Decisions Through the Continuity Lens" subtitle: "Avoiding lock-in by accident" track: "Operating Model & Leadership" estimated_time: "20–30 minutes" audience:

  • Executives
  • IT / Security
  • Procurement
  • Product

learning_outcomes:

  • Evaluate vendors for reversibility and memory safety
  • Avoid continuity debt in tooling choices
  • Preserve exit narratives

prerequisites: "Training 001–017 recommended" level: "Leadership / Applied" license: "Free / Open Training" version: "1.0" last_updated: "2025-12-18" ---

Vendor & Tooling Decisions Through the Continuity Lens

Avoiding lock-in by accident

Core stance

Lock-in is rarely intentional. It is the result of missing continuity questions.

Continuity questions for vendors

  • Why are we choosing this?
  • What assumptions does it encode?
  • How would we leave?
  • What memory would we lose?

Red flags

  • No export path
  • Knowledge trapped in vendor workflows
  • Irreversible configuration decisions

Exercises

  • Write an exit story for one vendor
  • Identify one tool with hidden memory lock-in
  • Add a reversibility note to procurement

Suggested next step

Require an exit narrative for high-impact tools.