The plan is not the end; it is the operational contract
A monitoring plan must describe the concrete promise the organisation is taking on: the questions it will follow, the authorised sources, how often it will observe, the selection method, who is responsible, the expected output and the review mechanisms. If it takes forty pages to manage two questions, it is probably too complex. If it contains only five keywords and a username, it is probably insufficient.
The Innobasque learning path ended by linking organisation, critical factors, information needs, filters, the product plan and the monitoring plan. We have turned that logic into a readable, executable template that can be adapted to a spreadsheet or a shared document.
The nine pieces of a minimal plan
- Decision and recipient: what the system exists for and who can act.
- CWF and questions: which changes you want to detect.
- Coverage: sources, types of events and accepted gaps.
- Capture: mechanisms and periodicity, manual or automated.
- Selection: criteria and examples of what to include and exclude.
- Validation and analysis: how facts and hypotheses are cross-checked.
- Products: priority alert, weekly summary, monthly briefing or other formats.
- Governance: owners, substitutions, permissions and escalation.
- Evaluation and improvement: operational indicators, perceived usefulness and review date.
Frequency should not be universal: a regulatory query can be checked at specific milestones and a price website more often, if that is justified and permitted. Monitoring can be carried out without specialised software, although the effort and the scale will differ.
Interactive · Decide
Which piece is this plan missing?
Each plan excerpt has a gap. Identify the missing piece.
Activity: identify which piece of the minimum plan is missing from each excerpt.
“We will monitor 40 sources twice a week and send everything by email.” It does not say for which decision or to whom.
“If the analyst is on leave… we'll see.”
“Everything that mentions the technology comes in.” There are no examples of what is included or excluded.
“The system will run indefinitely just as it is.”
“The sources are: press.” It does not say which events or which gaps are accepted.
Diagram · plan blueprint
The nine pieces of a minimum plan
Review the nine pieces: together they form the operational agreement of monitoring.
The nine pieces of a minimum plan: this activity needs JavaScript.
Choose a piece to see what it is.
Piece 1
Decision and recipientWhy the system exists and who can act.
Piece 2
CWF and questionsWhich changes are worth detecting.
Piece 3
CoverageSources, event types and accepted gaps.
Piece 4
CaptureMechanisms and frequency, manual or automated.
Piece 5
SelectionCriteria and examples of inclusion and exclusion.
Piece 6
Validation and analysisHow facts and hypotheses are tested against each other.
Piece 7
ProductsPriority alert, weekly summary, monthly briefing or other formats.
Piece 8
GovernanceOwners, substitutes, permissions and escalation.
Piece 9
Assessment and improvementOperational indicators, perceived usefulness and review date.
Frequency should not be universal: a regulatory query can be reviewed at specific milestones and a pricing website more often, if justified and permitted.
Lesson text; supporting visual.
Company A case · simulation
Fictional caseCompany A case · 30-day pilot (simulation)
The committee defines a decision: “Should we devote resources to exploring industrial thermal storage?”. The main CWF is the transition from technical development to commercial adoption. Four families of sources are selected, each with an owner and a documented review. An explicit rule is created to prioritise demonstrable pilots, contracts and regulatory changes. Results are separated into observations, hypotheses and possible consequences.
For thirty days, the team produces a weekly signal sheet; if a relevant milestone arises, it prepares a validated alert. At the close, management receives a note that includes alternatives: explore internally, approach partners or postpone; none is presented as an automatic answer. The system is also assessed on its coverage and on the gaps it detected.
No savings figures or business results are attributed to Company A; it is an exercise built for learning.
Educational simulation: fictional information and organisations.
Do it yourself
Do it yourself · Your operational plan in 45 minutes
Complete the R05 template. Choose a single CWF, five events at most and between three and eight initial sources. Define a product with a recipient and a review after 30 days. Before treating it as valid, put it through three tests:
- Absence of information: what happens if the critical source generates no alert?
- Contradiction: what happens if a primary source corrects an earlier news item?
- Substitution: can someone else continue the plan if the owner is absent?
If it fails, improve the plan before adding more automation. Continuous improvement starts with testable hypotheses: “this channel yields few useful events” or “the monthly review arrives too late”.
Operational monitoring plan
Turn the design into a sustainable routine.
See the template →Map of sources and coverage
Locate sources, limits, frequency and gaps.
See the template →Check it · closed answer
Which test does the plan fail in each case?
Each test checks a different way of failing. Identify which one applies and what you would add to the plan.
For three weeks, the critical regulatory source generates no alert and nobody checks whether it is still working.
See the answer
Answer: Absence of information. The plan does not say what to do when a critical source goes quiet. Silence can mean there is no news or that capture has failed, and the plan must tell the two apart. What to add to the plan: a periodic check of the source and a rule for prolonged silence.
An official bulletin corrects a figure you had already included in the weekly summary sent to management.
See the answer
Answer: Contradiction. A primary source contradicts something already disseminated. The plan must know how to correct a product and leave a record of the change. What to add to the plan: who issues the correction, how recipients are notified and where the correction is logged.
The person in charge of sources is away for three weeks and nobody else knows which filtering rules are active.
See the answer
Answer: Substitution. If the plan cannot continue when its owner is missing, it depends on one person rather than on a system. What to add to the plan: a deputy, and documentation of the active rules and the recipients.
And now, your own answer
This part needs professional judgement: there is no automatic marking. Complete your work in the practice, rate it with the lesson's rubric and compare it with the indicative solution.
What your answer should include
- A single CWF and between three and eight initial sources.
- A justified frequency for each source.
- A substitute and escalation rules.
- A product with a recipient and a review at 30 days.
- An outside person identifies the sources, logs a signal and knows who to escalate it to.
Indicative solution
Solution: 1 CWF; 4 families of sources; justified frequency; one substitute; escalation rules; weekly note and briefing at day 30; technical checks and a usefulness review.
Illustrative solution for a fictional case: reasoned alternatives are valid.
Common mistakes
Producing a generic plan nobody consults; building the technical system first and only then looking for a purpose for it; confusing newsletters sent with better decisions; not allocating a time budget; not recording changes to the monitoring criteria.
Key takeaway: a first versioned monitoring plan and a 30-day review script.
Closing · A small system, defensible and improvable
You now have a CWF, a coverage map, a capture policy, owners and a minimal plan. You do not need to have automated everything or to use a particular tool: you need to make decisions and limitations explicit so that you can learn from them. In Learning path 03 we will look at which tasks in this system can get help from AI, which ones require controls, and why AI does not replace responsibility for the evidence.
Optional extensionExtension · The plan survives a month of real work
A document with nine sections is not operational if nobody knows when to step in. In addition to specifying the cadence, define the working signal, the tolerable delay, the escalation criterion, the substitution and the review ritual. The plan must answer what to do when nothing happens and what to do when something is detected that contradicts the previous version. If someone else cannot explain it without talking to its author, it still depends too much on tacit knowledge.
Company A minimal plan · Worked example with eight fields (all fictional)
| R05 field | Decision for the 30-day pilot |
|---|---|
| Decision and scope | The innovation committee decides between observing, exploring with a limited pilot or seeking a partner |
| Priority questions | Is there verifiable commercial adoption? Is there an applicable regulatory milestone? |
| Sources, method and cadence | Specialised public register, competent authority, technical press releases and sector publications; documented review twice a week, except for urgent milestones |
| What is left out | Private contracts, jurisdictions not covered, confidential information without permission |
| Owner and deputy | Designated analyst and a deputy with access to the procedure |
| Validation and escalation | Check the original document; alert on a confirmed operating contract or a relevant formal change |
| Product and recipient | Weekly note of observations; briefing on alternatives for management at day 30 |
| Indicator and review | Source checks performed, omissions detected and perceived usefulness; review at day 30 |
The frequencies and thresholds are teaching choices of the case, not mandatory recommendations. The regulatory signal may deserve immediate review if the decision calendar changes, but that first requires checking which authority published which act and with what validity.
Failure simulation · The test of the three absences
Absence of data: three weeks go by without regulatory alerts. The question is not “were there any changes?” but “did capture work and was the source reviewed?”. Recording the last check avoids presenting technical silence as the absence of facts.
Contradiction: an official source corrects a statement used in a briefing. The plan must make it possible to locate which product received the information, version it and communicate the correction to its recipients. Keeping a previous version does not mean maintaining it as current.
Absence of a person: whoever configured the filters is on leave. The deputy needs accessible rules, a review date, legitimate permissions and an emergency protocol. If the system only works because the person remembers their filters, it is not yet repeatable.
Optional extension · Acceptance by transfer (45 minutes)
Hand R05 to a colleague without explaining it verbally. Give them seven minutes to locate the CWF, check a source, log a signal, describe the escalation and prepare a short message for management. Ask them to mark each action as feasible / incomplete / impossible. Modify the plan until all five are feasible or are declared as a limitation. Close with a 30-day review record that includes one verifiable improvement and the person responsible for carrying it out.
Verifiable deliverable: versioned R05 + R03 coverage + R04 filter test + R15 owners, with a date and the next checkpoint. Connection: Lab L02 “Monitoring plan builder”. Self-assessment of governance and UNE are addressed separately in 4.5.
Interactive · Simulation
A month of real operation
Simulation: a month of running the plan, with three incidents.
Week 2: three weeks without regulatory alerts.
Week 3: an official source corrects a figure you used in the briefing.
Week 4: the person who configured the filters is on leave.
judgement points
References and limits
- UNE · Asociación Española de Normalización. UNE 166006:2018. Gestión de la I+D+i: Sistema de vigilancia e inteligencia (2018). DocumentReference framework for watch and intelligence systems. Cited only as context, never as a source of requirements.Reference consulted on 2026-10-18.
- Innguma · internal training material. Definición de un sistema de vigilancia (presentación, 2021-12-01) (2021).Methodological basis of the watch cycle and of critical watch factors.Innguma training material, not public.
- Innguma · internal training material. Construyendo un sistema de vigilancia (presentación, 2022-04-28) (2022).Sources, filtering, management and dissemination.Innguma training material, not public.
- Innguma · internal training material. De las necesidades de información al plan de vigilancia (presentación, 2022-05-12) (2022).Information needs and the watch plan.Innguma training material, not public.
- Company A is a fictional case: its data, companies and figures do not describe real markets or organisations.
- Timeframes, frequencies and lists in the plan are adjustable teaching proposals, not mandatory procedures of a standard.
Intelligence Lab · L02
Monitoring plan builder
Ready to apply it? Open the Monitoring plan builder in the Lab and build an editable plan you can download. Output: editable monitoring plan. Works in the browser, no server, no account and no connected AI. The result may need reviewing and adapting to your case.