Stack Planning
Part of Marketing technology roadmaps
Reviewing the stack against the next year's marketing needs
Compare next year’s marketing work with current tools, people and processes to decide what to keep, improve, investigate or watch.
Compare next year’s expected marketing work with what the current stack can reliably support. Finish with a short list of keep, improve, investigate and watch decisions, each tied to evidence and a next check.
Change the roadmap where future work changes. The review need not begin a new software search by default.
Begin with the coming work
Ask campaign, content, sales and reporting owners what activities they expect to deliver next year and which decisions depend on them. Record approved commitments separately from possible changes. Treat a confirmed market launch differently from an idea still awaiting approval.
Choose a few representative workflows. For each, note its expected volume or complexity, required timing, receiving team and consequential exception. Ask whether the current route supported comparable work this year. Use task records, incidents and owner accounts where available; leave an evidence gap open rather than turning a complaint into a measured trend.
Compare capacity with demand
Review people and processes alongside software. A tool may have a usable feature the team has not configured or staffed. Another may appear adequate until a coming campaign needs a different approval route, data field or reporting deadline. Check the organisation’s actual edition, permissions and connected systems before marking a capability available.
Review finding / Decision to consider
- The current route is dependable for the expected task
- Keep it and name its owner.
- A definition, hand-off or configuration gap limits the route
- Improve it and set a checkable result.
- A necessary future outcome remains unsupported
- Investigate a bounded software change.
- The future need is uncertain
- Watch for the trigger that would justify action.
Record when each decision must be made. A tool needed for a later campaign may require an earlier contract or implementation decision. Keep those dates and dependencies visible without presenting an unapproved project as committed.
Current Stack Capacity vs. Next Year's Marketing Demand
- Current Route Dependable for Expected Task
- Keep it and name its owner
- Definition, Hand-off or Configuration Gap
- Improve it and set a checkable result
- Necessary Future Outcome Unsupported
- Investigate a bounded software change
- Future Need Uncertain
- Watch for the trigger that would justify action
Turn the review into next actions
For each proposed change, state the future task, current evidence, consequence if nothing changes, responsible owner and next check. Name the event that would cause the proposal to be dropped or brought forward. Keep the list short enough to revisit during the year.
Consider a team expecting more local campaign pages. Its review might find that editors can create pages, but market approval is unclear. The first action is to define and check that approval route. A CMS replacement becomes a separate decision if the route cannot meet the agreed need.
Review the list when a major campaign, team, acquisition or supplier release changes the assumptions. Close items with observed outcomes and update the roadmap’s order. The annual review is useful when next year’s work has a credible route and each unresolved gap has an owner.
