[Skip to content](https://academy.innguma.com/en/thinking-in-terms-of-intelligence/searching-is-not-monitoring/#contenido) Lesson 1.1 · Learning path 01 # Searching is not monitoring How can you show that an organisation observes what matters to it, instead of merely finding answers when someone asks? **You take away** a minimum coverage sheet for a topic that concerns you. ≈ 25 min · Beginner [Do the practice](https://academy.innguma.com/en/thinking-in-terms-of-intelligence/searching-is-not-monitoring/#hazlo-tu-ficha-de-cobertura-minima-1015-minutos)[Exercise](https://academy.innguma.com/en/thinking-in-terms-of-intelligence/searching-is-not-monitoring/#compruebalo)[Read the lesson](https://academy.innguma.com/en/thinking-in-terms-of-intelligence/searching-is-not-monitoring/#una-busqueda-puede-ser-excelente-y-aun-asi-insuf) In 1 minute a search gives an answer; a monitoring system gives continuity, visible limits and the capacity for review. ## A search can be excellent and still be insufficient Imagine that management asks: «What is happening with industrial thermal storage?». An analyst consults several search engines, reads six articles, uses an AI to summarise them and sends an impeccable note. It may be valuable research. But what will happen next week? Will the regulatory bulletin be checked again? Will we know whether a patent database was inaccessible? Will we notice that a competitor changed the date of its project? **Searching** answers a need at one point in time. **Monitoring** sets up a repeatable observation of defined questions and sources. The difference is not whether or not automation is used: it is being able to explain *what is observed, since when, how often, by what criterion and what is done with what is detected*. Exploratory search is very useful at the start: it uncovers vocabulary, actors, unknown sources and new questions. But a current answer does not prove historical or future coverage. Systematic monitoring does not guarantee that no event will ever slip through either: it requires acknowledging its limits. Interactive · Classify ### One-off search or monitoring? Drag each practice to its column, or tap it and then tap the column. Activity: classify practices as “one-off search” or “systematic monitoring”. ## Five decisions that turn a search into monitoring 1. **Purpose:** what decision could change because of what we detect? 2. **Scope:** which actors, technologies, geographies, facts and periods do we include? What do we exclude? 3. **Coverage:** which sources are critical and which are only complementary? 4. **Cadence and control:** how often are they checked? How do we tell silence from a technical failure? 5. **Destination:** who receives each finding and by what criterion is it escalated? You do not need a large team to start. A spreadsheet with these five decisions documented can be a more reliable initial system than an opaque collection of automatic searches. Company A case · simulation Fictional case ## Example · Company A · The difference between no news and no coverage Company A has to assess whether to explore a thermal storage solution. The teaching corpus includes **S06**, a fictional regulatory consultation, and **S15**, a later note that postpones the decision. Someone who finds only S06 may wrongly conclude that a future requirement is imminent. Someone who logs the follow-up recognises that it is a *consultation*, finds S15 and updates the status. The question is not «have we obtained information?», but «can we reconstruct which source we checked and what the current situation is?». An entry such as «no news» is acceptable only if the source was successfully checked within the planned period. Educational simulation: fictional information and organisations. Interactive · Decide ### What do you note on the coverage sheet? Four real monitoring situations. Choose the status you would record. Activity: decide which status to record in four source-monitoring situations. Do it yourself ## Do it yourself · Minimum coverage sheet (10–15 minutes) Choose a real non-confidential decision or work with Company A. Complete one row per source: | Field | What to record | Teaching example | | --- | --- | --- | | Question | Decision it can influence | Do the adoption requirements change? | | Source | Exact origin and type | Company A’s fictional regulatory portal | | Frequency | Cadence and justification | Weekly; daily during a consultation | | Owner | Who verifies | Innovation analyst | | Last check | Date and result | Checked; no news / new publication | | Status | Operational, down, no access | Operational | | Escalation | What triggers a communication | Publication of the final provision | **Quality test:** if someone else can continue the follow-up tomorrow using your sheet, the design is starting to be reproducible. R03 · Collection ### Map of sources and coverage Locate sources, limits, frequency and gaps. [See the template →](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/map-of-sources-and-coverage/) Check it · self-assessment ## Check your coverage sheet 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 - Each source has a justified cadence and an owner. - You distinguish «no news» (source checked and accessible) from «no coverage» (source down or inaccessible). - You define what triggers a communication. - Someone else could continue the follow-up tomorrow using your sheet. Self-assessment rubric (0–2 per criterion) Teaching interpretation: it is not a certified diagnosis or a score of organisational maturity. Decision orientation Evidence and provenance Uncertainty Reproducible method Actionability **Indicative solution** For Company A, a sufficient sheet would include: a simulated regulatory consultation or register (weekly follow-up, plus extra checks when there is a deadline), simulated patent registers (weekly) and technical sources or test results (every two weeks, with alerts for new tests). Record «no news» only if the check took place and the source was accessible. A source that is down requires marking «no coverage» and retrying or finding legitimate backup; the accepted answer is «coverage not verified», not «there is no news». **Mistake to avoid:** Stating that a consultation in S06 became a regulation before verifying the later outcome S15. Illustrative solution for a fictional case: reasoned alternatives are valid. **Optional extension Deep dive · A source’s silence is not a sign of stability** Suppose the reference portal returns no publications for four weeks. There are at least three different explanations: nothing new has happened, the portal has changed its structure or the query stopped working. The responsible answer is not to mark «no news» across the board. The coverage sheet must record the date and result of the check, effective access, changes to the query and who will review an incident. When the cause is not known, the right status is «coverage not verified». In a small system a periodic manual check is enough; automation does not replace checking that things work. Nor does setting up a search-engine alert amount to permanent monitoring: you need to know its coverage, its delay and its exclusion criteria. ## Contrast case · Two teams facing S06 and S15 **Team A:** saves a news item about a regulatory consultation (S06) and six weeks later tells management that «an obligation is coming». **Team B:** records that it is a consultation, notes the closing date, owner and source, and when S15 appears it revises its interpretation because the decision is postponed. The second team does not have more information by definition: it has a method that allows it to correct it. **Editorial decision for the participant:** write two sentences for management. The first must describe the established status of the consultation. The second must state what we do not yet know and what the next check will be. Neither may present the regulatory change as being in force. ## Acceptance criterion for the exercise The sheet is valid if it specifies *question, individually identifiable source, desired coverage, failure control, owner, trigger and recipient*. A register with many URLs but no verification date is incomplete; one that documents a single critical source may be enough to begin with. ## What usually goes wrong - Confusing ten repeated results with ten independent sources. - Saying «nothing has happened» when a source could not be consulted. - Monitoring too many topics and having no priority criteria. - Assuming that an AI with search access monitors the sources continuously on its own. **Key takeaway:** a search gives an answer; a monitoring system gives continuity, visible limits and the capacity for review. ## References and limits - UNE · Spanish Association for Standardization. *UNE 166006:2018. Gestión de la I+D+i: Sistema de vigilancia e inteligencia* (2018). [Document](https://www.une.org/encuentra-tu-norma/busca-tu-norma/norma?c=N0059973) Reference framework for watch and intelligence systems. It is cited only as context, never as a source of requirements. Reference consulted on 2026-10-18. - Company A is a fictional case: its data, companies and figures do not describe real markets or organisations. - The cycle, the critical factors and the intelligence questions are presented as a general method of the Academy; they do not reproduce requirements of any standard. Intelligence Lab · L03 ## Filter test Ready to apply it? Open the Filter test in the Lab and find out which signals your rule misses and which ones it picks up unnecessarily. Output: comparison of filtering rules. Works in the browser, no server, no account and no connected AI. The result may need reviewing and adapting to your case. - [Open the tool](https://academy.innguma.com/en/lab/filter-test/) - [Back to the learning path](https://academy.innguma.com/en/thinking-in-terms-of-intelligence/) **Download** - [R03 · Map of sources and coverage](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/map-of-sources-and-coverage/) Open reading, no registration.