Requirements - Decision Making & Governance
-
DM08 - Decision Making
All decision-making should be structured. E.g. identify key strategic drivers, user needs, assess options against drivers, present rationale, clarity on trade-offs, dependencies, risks and issues understood.
Requirement description
This requirement is concerned with ensuring that architecture and solution decisions are made using a consistent, transparent and evidence-based approach.
Rather than relying on opinion, preference or individual influence, decisions should be based on clear business drivers, user needs, strategic objectives, risks, dependencies and available options. Decision-makers should be able to explain how a conclusion was reached and what trade-offs were considered.
Structured decision-making improves transparency, auditability and confidence that the chosen solution is appropriate for the problem being solved.
In simple terms:
Important architecture decisions should follow a repeatable process that evaluates options against agreed drivers and clearly explains why a particular option was selected.
Scoring rubric table – DM08 Structured Decision-Making
| Score | What it looks like | Typical evidence | Key gaps / risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No evidence of a structured decision-making approach. Decisions appear to be made without documented analysis, rationale or assessment criteria. |
No decision records. No options assessments. No documented rationale. No evidence of trade-off analysis. |
Significant service risk. Decisions may be subjective, inconsistent and difficult to justify or review. |
| 1 | Limited evidence of structured decision-making. Some reasoning may be documented, but decisions are largely informal and inconsistent. |
Meeting notes. Informal discussions. Basic decision statements. Limited explanation of why decisions were made. |
High-risk gaps. Options may not be evaluated properly and important risks or dependencies may be overlooked. |
| 2 | Some elements of structured decision-making are visible. Individual decisions may include rationale or option assessment, but the approach is incomplete or inconsistently applied. |
Partial decision records. Some option evaluations. Limited trade-off analysis. Incomplete linkage to business drivers or user needs. |
Significant notable gaps. Decision quality may vary and important considerations may not be consistently assessed. |
| 3 | Much of the decision-making process is structured. Most significant decisions are supported by documented rationale and consideration of relevant factors. |
Architecture Decision Records. Options appraisal documents. Documented business drivers. Risk and dependency assessments. Decision papers presented through governance. |
Notable gaps remain. Some decisions may lack complete options analysis, explicit trade-off discussions or documented evaluation criteria. |
| 4 | Most significant decisions follow a consistent and repeatable decision-making approach. Business drivers, user needs, risks and trade-offs are routinely considered and documented. |
Consistent decision templates. Structured options assessments. Decision matrices. Documented trade-offs. Clear rationale linked to objectives. Governance review evidence. |
Minor gaps only. Remaining weaknesses are unlikely to materially affect decision quality. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and exemplar structured decision-making. Decisions are demonstrably evidence-based, repeatable and aligned to organisational objectives. |
Mature decision framework. Comprehensive options analysis. Clear evaluation criteria. Traceability between drivers, options and outcomes. Documented lessons learned. Evidence that structured decision-making is routinely used across the delivery lifecycle. |
Minimal or no significant gaps. Decision-making is transparent, defendable and continuously improved. |
What assessors should look for
- Strategic drivers – Are decisions linked to clear business, organisational or strategic objectives?
- User needs – Have user needs been considered and reflected in the decision process?
- Options assessment – Were multiple options evaluated before selecting an approach?
- Trade-off analysis – Are benefits, drawbacks, risks and compromises clearly documented?
- Risk and dependency assessment – Are risks, constraints, assumptions and dependencies identified and considered?
- Decision rationale – Can stakeholders understand why a particular option was selected?
- Consistency – Is a repeatable decision-making approach used across significant architecture decisions?
What separates a 3 from a 4 or 5
A score of 3 generally means that many important decisions are supported by documented rationale and some form of options analysis, but the approach is not consistently applied or key factors such as trade-offs, dependencies or user needs are not fully documented.
A score of 4 requires a repeatable and consistently applied approach. Most significant decisions should demonstrate structured analysis, documented trade-offs and clear alignment to business drivers and user needs.
A score of 5 requires structured decision-making to be embedded within architecture and delivery practices. Evidence should show that decisions are consistently evidence-based, traceable, governed and used to support long-term architecture evolution and organisational learning.
Suggested evidence examples (not SAF-mandated artefacts)
- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
- Options appraisal documents
- Decision matrices and scoring models
- Business case option assessments
- User research outputs informing design decisions
- Risk and dependency assessments
- Governance papers and approval records
- Solution Design Overview documents
- Trade-off analysis documentation
- Architecture review outputs
Updated: 04 September 2026 (SAF Version 1.1)