Move from a fuzzy technical problem to a documented, traceable architecture decision.
An accepted ADR with clear context, evaluated options, trade-offs, and follow-up actions.
You can decide which architecture option is chosen, which downsides are consciously accepted, and who owns implementation.
Review the ADR, anchor it in the architecture repository, and move follow-up actions into backlog or roadmap.
What decision is pending now, who owns it, which objectives, alternatives, and uncertainties belong in the frame, and what analysis is needed before deciding?
The entry step clarifies which decision is actually pending, who decides, and which evidence is needed for a robust recommendation.
The decision frame bounds the space in which options can then be worked out comparably.
Which genuinely distinct and feasible courses of action cover the decision space without mixing solutions, objectives, and assumptions?
Option framing makes solution paths comparable without treating them too early as winners or losers.
The structured options provide the basis for explicit trade-off evaluation.
Which alternative offers the best justified value across conflicting objectives, and under which assumptions does the choice change?
Trade-off analysis shows which disadvantages each option consciously buys and which quality goals are affected.
The accepted trade-offs are then documented in the architecture decision.
Which architecture decision are we making in this context, why choose it and which consequences does it carry?
The ADR records context, decision, alternatives, and consequences so later teams can understand the reasoning.
The ADR creates concrete implementation tasks, review points, and communication needs.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Decision Framing Workshop: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
- **Roles:** Decision owner · key stakeholders · domain/data experts · facilitator · scribe
- **Advance information:** Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
- **Overall time needed:** 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Decision · Scope · Objectives · Options · Evidence; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Decision: Decision statement
- Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
- Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
#### Scope: Scope map
- Decision statement
#### Objectives: Objective hierarchy
- Scope map
#### Options: Alternative space
- Objective hierarchy
#### Evidence: Evidence plan
- Alternative space
## Decision Framing Workshop · working structure
| Frame field | Working question | Fictional content | Owner/source | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Decision | | | | |
| Scope | | | | |
| Objectives | | | | |
| Alternatives | | | | |
| Uncertainty | | | | |
- **Decision:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Scope:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Objectives:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Alternatives:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Uncertainty:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.sdg.org/en/decision-quality)
## Decision: Decision statement
Expected artifact: Decision statement
Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the statement contain a concrete choice and empowered owner?
## Scope: Scope map
Expected artifact: Scope map
Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are contested boundaries visible as decisions or assumptions?
## Objectives: Objective hierarchy
Expected artifact: Objective hierarchy
Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are objectives independent of preferred solutions and free of double counting?
## Options: Alternative space
Expected artifact: Alternative space
Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are at least two real actions and status quo comparable?
## Evidence: Evidence plan
Expected artifact: Evidence plan
Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is it clear which uncertainty can change the choice and who resolves it by when?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/decision-framing-workshop/run-sheet
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Option Framing: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 75–120 minutes for one decision; evidence work and evaluation follow separately.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log
- **Roles:** Decision owner · affected stakeholders · domain perspectives · facilitator
- **Advance information:** Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.
- **Overall time needed:** 75–120 minutes for one decision; evidence work and evaluation follow separately.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Frame · Objectives · Options · Consequences · Gaps; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Frame: Choice frame
- Set decision, owner, deadline, scope, and non-negotiable boundaries; defer evaluation until the option set is complete.
- Decision statement, objectives and boundaries, status quo, option cards, consequence hypotheses, and assumption log
#### Objectives: Objective view
- Choice frame
#### Options: Option space
- Objective view
#### Consequences: Option cards
- Option space
#### Gaps: Testable frame
- Option cards
## Option Framing · working structure
| Option | Mechanism | Required capability | Expected consequences | Reversibility | Tipping question |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A · Status quo | | | | | |
| B · Fixed slots | | | | | |
| C · Dynamic slots | | | | | |
| D · Slots plus buffer | | | | | |
- **A · Status quo:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **B · Fixed slots:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **C · Dynamic slots:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **D · Slots plus buffer:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.sdg.org/en/decision-quality)
## Frame: Choice frame
Expected artifact: Choice frame
Phrase the decision as a choice with owner, timing, scope, and boundaries.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the owner choose among named actions by a date?
## Objectives: Objective view
Expected artifact: Objective view
Capture fundamental objectives and red lines without disguising solution features as objectives.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each objective state a desired consequence for affected people?
## Options: Option space
Expected artifact: Option space
Build status quo, discrete mechanisms, and useful hybrids from independent design dimensions.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do options differ in mechanism and remain feasible?
## Consequences: Option cards
Expected artifact: Option cards
Describe expected effects, side effects, reversibility, and dependencies per option.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are effects causally tied to the mechanism and marked as hypotheses?
## Gaps: Testable frame
Expected artifact: Testable frame
Check duplicates, infeasible options, and information gaps; set next analysis step.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does a real choice with clear evidence questions remain?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/option-framing/run-sheet
Markdown matrix for comparing options across competing criteria and accepted trade-offs.
# Trade-off Matrix: Decision
| Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---:|---|---|---|
| Benefit | 30 | | | |
| Cost | 20 | | | |
| Risk | 20 | | | |
| Time-to-Learn | 15 | | | |
| Reversibility | 15 | | | |
## Accepted trade-offs
- Option A accepts:
- Option B accepts:
- Option C accepts:
## Recommendation
Which option is recommended and why?
## Sensitivity
Which small change in weighting or assumption would flip the recommendation?Plan work on an ADR from context through trade-offs to the agreed review.
# Architecture Decision Record: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Prepare and review an ADR
Time: Arrange drafting and review separately
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** A short text template, relevant architecture context, sources for considered options and a versioned location accessible to contributors.
- **Roles:** An owner writes the draft. Relevant engineering, architecture, product or operations contributors review its consequences. The agreed decision owner explicitly accepts the decision.
- **Advance information:** Gather the question, current architecture, affected quality requirements and known constraints. Link relevant earlier ADRs and sources.
- **Overall time needed:** Allow roughly 15 to 45 minutes for a focused draft. Investigation, discussion and review are additional and may be asynchronous. Agree on a suitable review point together.
- **Setup:** Assign a stable ID and short title, set status to proposed and create the record in the shared location. Agree on the decision and review process with contributors.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Frame: Clarify decision and context
- Architecture question and current system context
#### Compare: Compare relevant options
- Decision context and realistic options
#### Decide: Review and record the decision
- Draft, trade-offs and affected perspectives
#### Maintain: Follow consequences and preserve history
- ADR with explicit status and follow-up tasks
## ADR structure
### ID, title and status
Record a stable ID, decision question, date, contributors, owner and current status.
...
### Context and decision drivers
Why is this decision needed? Which requirements and constraints shape it?
...
### Considered options
Briefly compare relevant options, decisive differences, sources and uncertainties.
...
### Decision and rationale
Record the chosen option and its decisive rationale. Label a draft as a proposal.
...
### Consequences and follow-up
Describe relevant favorable and unfavorable consequences, uncertainties and concrete follow-up work.
...
### Review, status changes and links
Document review, explicit decision and date. Link sources and any predecessor or successor.
...
Begin with proposed status. Record acceptance explicitly. Link a changed decision as a new ADR and preserve its original rationale.
[Based on Michael Nygard, with options and review added](https://cognitect.com/blog/2011/11/15/documenting-architecture-decisions)
## Frame: Clarify decision and context
Expected artifact: Decision context
Question · significance · constraints · ownership
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can a future reader understand the starting point?
## Compare: Compare relevant options
Expected artifact: Traceable trade-offs
Option · relevant impact · uncertainty · source
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are realistic options evaluated against the same context?
## Decide: Review and record the decision
Expected artifact: ADR with an explicit status
Choice · rationale · consequences · status · date
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is the decision explicitly confirmed and recorded?
- [ ] Are relevant consequences and open tasks understandable?
## Maintain: Follow consequences and preserve history
Expected artifact: Linked decision history
Follow-up · trigger · predecessor · successor
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the earlier rationale and current status be found?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/adr/run-sheet