Five migration strategies for technology adoption: from eclectic Explorer to strategic Straggler
Stop chasing every new tool. Stop feeling guilty about waiting. Learn where to sit on the technology migration spectrum.
Five migration strategies reveal when to adopt new technology and when to wait, helping Solo Chiefs choose deliberately instead of reactively.
I've wasted an embarrassing amount of time these past few months exploring AI agent technologies.
I've tested platforms that no longer exist, learned frameworks that pivoted into something unrecognizable, and built workflows on foundations that crumbled within weeks. I had finally mastered Make, then heard that n8n was better, then Claude Code arrived, then Google Opal and Antigravity dropped, and now I'm wondering if agentic workflow tools are just an elaborate scheme to keep me permanently unproductive.
The pattern is almost beautiful in its cruelty. Just when your muscle memory solidifies and you can finally build instead of learn, the tech ecosystem declares your entire stack obsolete. You spent three hours learning that new integration, only to discover the API changed yesterday and half the endpoints are deprecated.
The newer tool-on-the-block always promises more: better integration, sleeker UX, native support for whatever protocol the tech labs invented last week. Your half-finished workflows become archaeological ruins from a civilization that lasted three months.
The Pain of the Explorer
Welcome to the life of an Explorer. Tech environments evolve so quickly that tutorials expire before you finish watching them. That crucial menu item has moved. The essential setting vanished. The button Gemini told you to click exists only in the collective hallucination we call training data. Meanwhile, OpenAI just deprecated the integrations you finally got working this morning.
But when you're an Explorer, that's exactly what you signed up for. We're all frantically migrating data, connecting tools that weren't meant to talk to each other, reformatting results because the new version broke backward compatibility. Again. Every video tutorial is a historical artifact. Every LLM response is a confident lie about a UI that has already moved onwards.
The cruel joke is that this perpetual obsolescence gets sold as innovation. Progress. The future. But what we're actually experiencing is a new kind of technical debt where the asset that depreciates fastest is our own knowledge. We're not building skills anymore. We're renting them, and the lease keeps getting shorter.
"What we're actually experiencing is a new kind of technical debt where the asset that depreciates fastest is our own knowledge."
Maybe that's the real skill now: not mastering tools, but mastering the psychological endurance to keep learning things you know will be worthless in six months. The ability to stay curious while everything you touch turns to legacy code overnight.
When you're an Explorer, the future of work isn't about what you know. It's about how fast you can forget. It is the price of exploration. High cognitive load. Countless dead ends. The constant nagging question: Should I have just waited, like a decent Pioneer or Settler?
Maybe. Maybe not. And if you're reading this, you're likely facing similar choices, not just with AI agents, but with any significant technology shift. CRM migrations. New product management systems. That new accounting software everyone swears by.
The question isn't whether to adopt new tools. The question is when and how, and what price you're willing to pay.
"The question isn't whether to adopt new tools. The question is when and how, and what price you're willing to pay."
The Innovation Adoption Curve, Reframed
You've probably seen Everett Rogers' famous bell curve: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, Laggards. It's useful but bloodless. The labels describe timing without capturing the experience of the transition.
As a mapmaker, I prefer a different metaphor: migration to new territory.
When humans move to unfamiliar lands, they don't all arrive at once, and they don't all arrive for the same reasons. Some seek adventure. Some seek opportunity. Some are pushed out of a dying homeland. Each wave faces different conditions, different risks, and different rewards.
The same is true for technology adoption. What follows are five migration strategies, each with its own logic.
1. Explorers (also called Innovators)
Explorers venture into completely unknown territory. They're the first to try a new tool, often before it's ready for serious use. Their job is reconnaissance: map the terrain, identify the dangers, and report back to everyone else.
The Explorer's burden is cognitive load. Everything is unfamiliar. Documentation is sparse or nonexistent. You're simultaneously learning the tool and discovering whether it's worth learning at all. Most explorations lead nowhere. The territory turns out to be barren, or the tool disappears before you can do anything useful with it.
But Explorers also get something valuable: early pattern recognition. When the next tool emerges in the same space, they recognize the landscape. They've already made the conceptual leaps. They know which questions to ask.
Exploration isn't for everyone. It requires tolerance for ambiguity, enough time to waste, and genuine curiosity about possibilities that may never materialize. If you need immediate ROI, stay out of unexplored territory.
2. Pioneers (or Early Adopters)
Pioneers are the first to actually commit to a territory that's already roughly mapped out. But unlike Explorers, who scout and often move on, Pioneers go in intending to stay. They build on uncertain ground, knowing the soil might not hold.
The Pioneer's burden is risk. They're betting time, money, and sometimes reputation on tools that haven't proven themselves. Early versions are buggy. Promised features don't ship. The tool vendor pivots, or folds, or gets acquired by someone who doesn't care about backward compatibility.
But Pioneers also capture something valuable: first-mover advantage in their niche. While others wait for certainty, Pioneers develop expertise that becomes hard to replicate. They shape how the tool evolves by being early, vocal users. When the tool succeeds, Pioneers are already fluent while competitors are just starting to learn the alphabet.
Pioneering makes sense when the potential upside is large enough to justify the risk, and when you have the resilience to recover if things go wrong.
3. Settlers (or the Early Majority)
Settlers arrive when the territory is opened but not yet comfortable. Infrastructure exists (documentation, tutorials, a user community) but everything is still being built. The tool works, mostly, but rough edges remain.
The Settler's burden is effort. They're not facing the existential uncertainty of Pioneers, but they're still doing real work to make the tool function in their context. They write the workarounds, develop the best practices, and fill the gaps that official documentation misses.
Settlers capture leverage without extreme risk. They're early enough to gain a competitive advantage but late enough that the tool probably won't vanish overnight. They benefit from Pioneers' suffering while avoiding most of it themselves.
Settling is often the sweet spot for Solo Chiefs. You're not bleeding-edge, but you're a fast follower, ahead of the crowd. You've accepted some uncertainty in exchange for meaningful advantage.
You're reading The Maverick Mapmaker—maps and models for Solo Chiefs navigating sole accountability in the age of AI. All posts are free, always. Paying supporters keep it that way (and get a full-color PDF of Human Robot Agent plus other monthly extras as a thank-you)—for just one café latte per month. Subscribe or upgrade.
4. Dwellers (also known as the Late Majority)
Dwellers move into established territory. The town is built. The roads are paved. Electricity and plumbing work reliably. They're not building anything; they're inhabiting what others constructed.
The Dweller's burden is patience. They've waited while others took risks and reaped early rewards. They've watched from the sidelines, sometimes feeling left behind. The decision to finally move requires admitting that the world has changed and the old ways are no longer sufficient.
But Dwellers gain safety and efficiency. By the time they adopt it, the tool is stable. Training resources abound. Consultants specialize in it. Integration with other systems is solved. The path is clear enough to start a painless transition.
Dwelling makes strategic sense when the cost of being wrong exceeds the benefit of being early. When your business depends on reliability more than innovation. When the cognitive load of constant change threatens what you've already built.
There's no shame in dwelling. It's not ignorance; it's resource allocation.
5. Stragglers (sometimes called Laggards)
Stragglers are the last to arrive. They move only when the old territory becomes uninhabitable, when the legacy system loses support, when vendors stop answering calls, when the cost of staying finally exceeds the cost of leaving.
The Straggler's burden is disruption compressed. Where others spread the pain of transition over years, stragglers often face it all at once. They're migrating not by choice but by necessity, often under time pressure, frequently without the internal expertise that earlier migrants developed gradually. We might even consider them refugees.
But Stragglers also avoid something: wasted transitions. They don't adopt tools that fail. They don't invest in platforms that pivot. They don't rewrite workflows for systems that get acqui-hired into oblivion. Every hour of learning they invest goes into a new territory that has already proven its staying power. That's why they move there.
Straggling makes sense when stability matters more than advantage. When you've been burned before by premature adoption. When you simply have more important things to do than chase the new.
There Is No Best Strategy
Each position on the tech migration spectrum involves trade-offs. Explorers trade efficiency for insight. Pioneers trade safety for advantage. Settlers trade cutting-edge for practicality. Dwellers trade early gains for late certainty. Stragglers trade timeliness for proven value.
The mistake is thinking one strategy fits all situations, or that the same strategy should apply to every tool in your stack.
You might explore AI writing assistants while dwelling in your accounting software. You might pioneer a new CRM while straggling on product management tools. The question isn't "What kind of adopter am I?" but "What migration strategy fits this specific context?"
For Solo Chiefs, this matters a lot. You may not have a team to spread across different adoption timelines. Every tool you evaluate costs your time. Every migration disrupts your workflows. The cognitive load is yours alone to bear.
So choose deliberately. Know what you're trading and what you're gaining. And don't let anyone shame you for where you land on the spectrum. Some of us are eager to explore. Some of us are inclined to wait. Both are valid. Both are necessary.
Me?
When it comes to AI agents, I swagger between late Explorer and early Pioneer. In the case of product management tools, I'm usually a Settler. And with accounting software, I'll consider myself a happy Straggler. So yes, I'm a migrant who's traveling all over the map, and I've got the scars to show for it.
The map has room for everyone.
Jurgen, Solo Chief.
P.S. Where do you find yourself on the technology migration spectrum right now?
