While many dimensions of the reactive house do not directly require or presuppose advanced technology (often the opposite, viz. a reframing of needs to avoid needless tech is more appropriate), it is clear that in energy management and other areas, technology will have a significant role to play.
Yet untested/over-hyped/misunderstood/premature/expensive technology often becomes the rock on which sustainable projects founder. In built environments, unlike disposable consumer purchases, we often must live with results of technical choices made at time of construction, or swap them out at exorbitant expense. So it becomes an urgent matter to know how well new technology performs.
One visualization we use (borrowed from a software consulting company) leverages the metaphor of a radar screen: the blips on the screen represent points of interest, and the closer they are, the more we can see their potential. The tool we use divides these blips into 4 'ranks':
adopt - recommended to use in appropriate contexts
trial - promising, but carries risk: proceed accordingly
assess - worth investigating without deep commitment
hold - not recommended
We have divided the technical landscape (very roughly) into 4 categories: systems (whole house mechanical systems, e.g.), appliances (standardized components), materials and design. The radar data will be periodically updated.