Decision Record — Fictional Worked Example¶
Version: 1.1.0 | Licence: CC BY 4.0
This worked example demonstrates how to record a governance decision, including its context, evidence, options, rationale, approval conditions and review triggers. All details are fictional and should be adapted rather than treated as a precedent.
Fictional illustration only. It does not describe an actual organisation, project, decision, result or personal achievement.
- Decision ID: EX-SVC-001
- Title: Select a bounded service-improvement pilot before platform investment
- Status: Illustrative — pilot approved in the fictional scenario
- Decision owner: Executive sponsor (fictional role)
- Review trigger: Pilot evidence review or material change in service risk / assumptions
Context and outcome¶
A fictional organisation experiences slow resolution of internal service requests. The desired outcome is improved resolution time and user experience while maintaining service quality and avoiding premature technology commitment. A reliable quantified baseline has not yet been validated; establishing it is part of the pilot.
Options considered¶
- Process clarification and ownership pilot.
- Targeted workflow tooling.
- Broad platform replacement.
- Defer / do nothing.
Evidence and assumptions¶
The illustrative scoring matrix rates the options 4.60/5, 3.45/5 and 2.10/5 respectively. Ratings are assumed, not measured. Assumptions to validate: process ownership and hand-offs contribute materially to delay; the pilot can be bounded safely; service data can establish a baseline; users and operational owners can participate; no mandatory obligation requires immediate platform replacement.
Decision and rationale¶
Proceed with a bounded process clarification pilot. Do not approve broad platform replacement at this stage. Retain targeted workflow tooling as a conditional option if evidence identifies a workflow constraint that process clarification cannot resolve.
The pilot is the most reversible option and offers the fastest route to useful evidence under the fictional assumptions. It reduces uncertainty before a larger, less reversible investment.
Conditions¶
- Validate baseline, scope and measurement method before intervention.
- Name service owner, Initiative lead and benefit owner.
- Agree service-quality safeguards and escalation thresholds.
- Record user feedback and operational exceptions.
- Do not scale based solely on activity or anecdotal satisfaction.
Actions¶
| Action | Owner (role) | Due / trigger | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validate baseline and data quality | Service owner | Before pilot | Approved baseline definition |
| Confirm scope and safeguards | Sponsor + service owner | Before pilot | Pilot mandate |
| Run pilot and report exceptions | Initiative lead | During pilot | Progress / issue log |
| Assess adoption and outcome | Benefit owner | Review point | KPI and user evidence |
| Recommend continue, adapt or stop | Sponsor | Evidence review | Updated decision record |
Risks and unresolved questions¶
Baseline data may be incomplete; delays may be driven by factors outside scope; process changes may shift rather than reduce workload; adoption may be weak; mandatory technical or contractual constraints may emerge. Record dissent and specialist assurance issues before treating a decision as final.
Review outcome¶
Compare actual results with the validated baseline and agreed target trajectory. Decide to continue, adapt, add targeted tooling, scale or stop. Record evidence and rationale in a new decision entry.