Link Corporate Policy and Data Design with Decisioning

Decisions and Data

The discovery and normalization of data is a proven and accepted design approach that underpins systems design activity. This article proposes that we preface this approach with a new and
fundamental analysis artifact – the decision. Like both data and process, decisions can be the subject of original discovery and can drive further design activity.

Further, we will argue that decision modeling is a higher order analysis that provides context and guidance to both data and process analysis. Data is collected for a purpose, and that purpose has
its roots in decisioning. Similarly, processes exist to service decisions by connecting them to events. A further purpose of this paper is to discuss the methods that can be used to discover and
model decisions in a structured manner, analogous to data normalization. Data and decisions both have important roles in this decision-centric approach – each showing a different and
complementary view of the same system. Data models show the valid states of the system at rest; decision models describe the valid transitions between the states. However, it is the state
transitions described by the decision model’s that generate value for any business, giving the decision model a primacy that is not shared by either data or process.

In fact, we argue that it is the corporate strategy itself that defines when and how “value creating” state changes occur, and that this is the ultimate foundation upon which decisioning
approaches are built.


Definition: The discrete and systematic discovery, definition, assembly and execution of decisions.

We assert that decisions are first order citizens of the requirements domain. To provide a conceptual basis for this, let us go back to the foundations of any requirements

A business derives value from changing the state of some object or “thing” that the business values (literally, usually on its balance sheet). This focuses us on the very core of the
business – what is traded, managed, leveraged, used, built, or sold in order to achieve the objectives of the business. Until something happens to the object, the purpose cannot be achieved
and no value can be derived; therefore, in order to generate value, we must have a state change on the object. Note that we are interested primarily in the objects that are the basis of value and
which are fundamental to the purpose of the business. We are not interested in data entities per se, including such traditionally important entities as customer (we do not generally derive
value from changing the state of customers). Changing state implies that there is activity against an object, and this observation gives rise to the traditional process (activity) and data (object)
approaches. But if we look closely at any process causing state change, we will see that the change is always the result of a decision within the process rather than the process itself. Many
processes can execute against the object, but value is only derived when a state change occurs. Whenever state change occurs, the process can be shown to be a container for decisioning – the
state change is a result of the decisions rather than an inherent characteristic of the process. This confusion between decision and process is a systemic failure in today’s methodologies and
hides the importance of decisioning – to the extent, for instance, that UML does not include “business rules” (the closest existing concept we have to decisioning) within the UML
standard1. Processes are merely mechanisms by which data is supplied to a decision, and by which the system responds to the decisions made. If these pre- and post-decision activities are
wrapped together with the decisioning logic, then we have a complete end-to-end process that takes the business from one valid state to another, and which generates value in doing so. But it is
clear that the entire process is built around the decisioning kernel.

Decisions are the critical mechanisms by which we choose one action from the set of all possible actions. The purpose of decisions is to select the action that is most beneficial to the
decision maker in a given situation.

A decision is “made” when we resolve the available facts into a single definitive outcome; a decision cannot be multi-valued, ambiguous or tentative. A decision results from applying
discipline, knowledge and experience to the facts that describe the decision context. This application of discipline, knowledge and experience within decision making is the characteristic that most
closely defines the unique character of any business. Because of this fundamental truth, decision-making behavior is the only truly proprietary artifact in any system development. All other
artifacts can be inferred from industry practice, and do not differentiate each business specifically.


Definition: A proprietary datum derived by interpreting relevant facts according to structured business knowledge

The power of automated decisions to regulate and control system responses in a zero touch processing environment is driving increasing interest in decisioning.

Businesses do not make decisions merely because they have available data; nor do they act without making a decision. Decisions are clearly identifiable at the heart of any automated systems
response, giving purpose to the data and direction to the process.
If decision-centric analysis is used to rigorously identify and describe decision-making behavior prior to systems development, then it can be used to drive the discovery of data and its relevance
to the business – it is the need for the decision that is the primary driver of the need for the data. Decisioning is therefore a primary data analysis tool, a precursor to formal data
modeling. When data analysis is driven by decision modeling, it gives rise to concise and provably relevant data models. And because decisions also predicate process responses, decisioning also
implicitly drives process definition.

Decisions are also drivers for the discovery of other decisions. For instance, the decision to accept insurance business depends on precursor decisions regarding the acceptability of the customer,
the insured risk, pricing calculations, etc. Each additional decision can also depend on further decisions until a tree structured model of interdependent decisions is formed (the “decision

Decision Model

Definition: An ordered assembly of decisions that creates new and proprietary information to definitively determine an optimal course of action for the business.

It is the decision model that is the highest order analysis artifact and the only one to stem directly from the strategy itself. The concept of a model that defines order and context for decisions
is a critical differentiator between the disciplines of decisioning and those of “business rules.” A “decision” is atomic, and like its data counterpart, is only given
meaning by its context. The model is the critical concept in decisioning that provides this context. Further, it is only a complete assembly of decisions within the context of the model that can
drive the business responses – such that the decision model must operate as a single unit of work in order to transition the business objects from one valid state to the next. The decision
model representation of this transition is the only artifact in the system design world that directly describes the act of value creation for the business. It is this definition of value creation
that defines each business in a way that is different from every other business – the decisions by which it recognizes, values and responds to business events. We can liken this knowledge to
the business DNA, given that the complete business operation can be cloned if its core decision making IP can be replicated. From this perspective, the requirements of the decision are the
primordial requirements that drive the data and process requirements respectively, notwithstanding that there may be other factors that need to be accounted for in any given solution.

When the decision model is used to fast-track the discovery and modeling of both data and processes, it gives rise to a “decision-oriented” system – a system that has business
decision making as its core architectural consideration as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Decision-Oriented System

Decision Analysis

Decision analysis provides a unique and lightweight opportunity to analyze, define, and test the primordial requirements of many projects. This process itself provides valuable insights that reduce
risk and increase value; however, the products of the process represent more than simply new found perspective. The process produces two critical models that can be mutually reconciled – the
decision model and the fact model (or schema).

Figure 2

These models validate each other and form a mutually consistent whole that can, with the correct tools, also be represented in the form of executable assets and actually tested to provide an
assurance that the core value transitions that are proposed for the system can be implemented. The critical input to decision modeling is a clear understanding of the strategy that governs what the
business will and will not do to create value, so this exercise can occur as soon as the corporate strategy clearly describes the business value propositions.

It is entirely practical to undertake such a strategic decision analysis as part of strategy definition rather than as part of a systems development project. Our experience includes a major
logistics operator who spent considerable effort defining their proposed rating system in policy terms before contemplating a major re-development of their charging systems. By using decision
analysis, they were able to prove the viability of the proposal (to the extent of modeling revenue from actual operations) and to understand the project development requirement in terms of both
data and process before funding the development project itself.

It is our experience that simply identifying the true value targets within the proposed system generates insight within the business. The extent of de-risking prior to project commitment is
difficult to measure, but is intuitively significant. In order to de-risk a project, the decisioning analysis should occur not later than during inception.

How Do We Start?

The business derives value or achieves its purpose by changing the state of primary business objects (or things), whether they be insurance policies, loan accounts, patients, trains, or any other
object of value (including decision models!). These primary business objects are usually self-evident, and a cursory review of strategy documentation will highlight and clarify any ambiguities. But
if the primary objects cannot be defined quickly (minutes, not days) and with certainty, the business should not be building a system – it has much bigger issues to worry about! A primary
business object is by definition both tangible and discrete; therefore, it can be uniquely identified. Also by definition, it will be a source of value for the business and so the business will
usually assign its own unique identifier to it – its first data attribute. In fact, a useful way to find these objects is to look for proprietary and unique identifiers assigned by the
business (even in manual systems). Because it exists and generates value, external parties may also be involved and cause us to add specific additional non-discretionary attributes for interface or
compliance purposes (e.g., a registration number), and we might also add other identifying attributes to ensure that the primary object can be uniquely found using “real world” data. So
there is a small set of non-discretionary data that can be found and modeled simply because the primary object exists; this set of data is generic and will be more or less common across all like
businesses. We can think of this as “plumbing” – it cannot be a source of business differentiation. So what other data is there that will allow us to differentiate our business?
The amount of data that we could collect on any given topic is unbounded – how do we determine what additional data is relevant? Decisioning! How we make decisions is the key differentiator
of any business – how we decide to accept customers, approve sales, price sales, agree terms and conditions, etc. The important additional data will now be found because it is needed for
decision making. We are now ready to do decision analysis; that is, after the initial strategic scoping, and prior to either detailed data or process analysis.

Decision Discovery

Decision analysis is both simple and intuitive because this is the primary activity of the business – this is what the business knows best. A decision is a single atomic value – we
cannot have half a decision anymore than we can have half an attribute. So we are looking for explicit single valued outcomes, each of which will be captured as a new data attribute. Let’s
start with our business object (say, insurance policy) and with a state change that will cause a change in the value of that object (say, approve insurance policy). If we have a set of governance
policies, we will interrogate them looking for noun phrases, and related assertions and conditions. Noun phrases can be interpreted directly into a fact model. The assertions and conditions will be
reduced to a set of operations and declared as decision logic. We also need to access the domain expert within the business. The domain expert is the person charged with responsibility for strategy
directed decision making, and who can readily answer the question: “What decisions do you make in order to approve this insurance policy?” There is a pattern to most commercial decision
making that helps structure the decision discovery process (see Figure 3). The green circles are the most important in the cycle. We can start analysis with the first of the primary (green)
decision components (“Authorization or Acceptance” in Figure 3) – these are the “will I or won’t I” decisions. For our insurance policy, “Will I or
won’t I accept this risk?” (for other problem domains, simply replace the business object and state as required; e.g. for a hospital, “will I or won’t I admit this
patient?”, etc.). Determining this decision may identify many precursor decisions that need to be considered first. For instance, for our underwriting question we might need to ask:

  • What is the inherent risk of the object?
  • What is the customer risk?
  • What is the geographic risk?

These decisions, in turn, may give rise to further decisions so that we develop a tree of decisions – this is the decision model for authorization. Now we can move on to the next in the
primary class of decisions: at what price (or cost if a cost centre)? (“Pricing or Costing” in Figure 3). In this case, the question is “What decisions do you make to determine
the price… of this risk?” Again, this may result in a tree of decisions (for instance, pricing based on various optional covers, pricing for the different elements of risk, channel pricing,
campaigns and packages, etc.). Following “at what price?” we can repeat the process for the “Terms and Conditions” and then the other pre- and post-decisions:

  • Pre-Processing Check: Do I have sufficient information to start decision making?
  • Context-Based Validation: Is the supplied data valid?
  • Enrichment: What further data can I derive to assist with the primary decision making?
  • Product or Process Selection: Do I need to determine one decision path from other possible paths for the primary decision making?

And after the primary decision making:

  • Workflow: Now that I have made my primary decisions, what do I need to do next?
  • Post-Processing: Am I finished and complete without errors? Are my decisions within acceptable boundaries?

Figure 3


Data normalization is a semi-rigorous method for modeling the relationships between atomic data elements. It is “semi-rigorous” because normalization is a rigorous process that is
dependent on several very non-rigorous inputs, including:

  • Scope: Determines what is relevant – we don’t normalize what is not in scope.
  • Context: Determines how we view (and therefore how we define) each datum.
  • Definition of each datum: This is highly subjective yet drives the normalization process.

Data normalization is based on making a number of subjective assertions about the meaning and relevance of data, and then using the normal forms to organize those assertions into a single coherent
model. Normalization with regards to decisions is similar. Each decision derives exactly one datum and is “atomic” in the same way that data is. Similarly, each decision has
relationships to the other decisions in the model. The decisions are related by both sequence and context. In this regard, context plays a similar role to the “primary key” in data
normalization. Some of the inter-decision relationships within a model include:

  • All decisions have a data context that is derived from the normalized placement of its output datum.
  • Each decision definition may precede and/or follow exactly one other decision definition.
  • Each decision may belong to a group of decisions that share the same context.
  • In a direct parallel of 4th normal form, unlike decisions that share context should be separately grouped.
  • A group of decisions itself has sequence and may also be grouped with other decisions and groups according to shared context.

Decision-Driven Data Design

We have suggested that decision and fact models both evolve from strategy directed decision analysis. Following the initial discovery and elaboration of the primary business objects, we worked
through the decision discovery process by analyzing the strategy defined policies, which, in turn, identified new data attributes (the decision outputs). By locating these decisions around the data
elements in the Fact Model, we built an integrated decision/data model (see Figure 2).

This combined model is self-validating and improves the overall rigor of the analysis. Following the discovery of the decisions, we can then elaborate them with formulas. Formulas provide
additional detail regarding the consumption of data by decisions, thereby driving further demand for data. If the system cannot provide this data, then by definition the business cannot make the
decision and the objective of the process cannot be achieved. In this way, decisioning can be shown to define the scope and context of the data, which then compounds with the decision usage to
complete the data definition, which, in turn, drives the normalization and modeling processes for both. Note that the fact/data models used in decision modeling are subsets of the domain data model
– they need to contain only the data required by the decisioning that is currently in focus. They are, in effect, normalized models of the key transactions rather than a model of the entire
business. The XML schema standard is a useful standard for describing normalized transactional data. The set of fact models can then be merged to synthesize the primordial data model that will
underpin all further project related data analysis. The resultant model will only contain the data actually required by the business – there is no second guessing of the data requirements as
often occurs in a traditional approach, with significant and positive implications for development cost.

Decision-Driven Process Design

Decisioning also drives process. For a decision to execute, the decision model must be supplied with its fact model by a process. This data, and therefore the process, cannot be defined until the
decision requirements are known. Then, for the decision model to have any effect, a process must implement some response. While it is possible to define and build processes in anticipation of the
decisioning that will drive them, it is sensible to analyze the decisioning in order to determine the range of inputs and outcomes, and then to normalize the process responses to them. In practice,
bespoke discretionary processes do not occur in a vacuum, and should only occur when required to support value creation for the business – as described by decisioning (regulation and industry
practice may require additional processes, but these are non-discretionary by definition and may not add value). Processes that are found to exist that do not have this fundamental decision-driven
requirement are not good subjects for analysis – certainly their mere existence does not make the process requirement a necessity, and they are candidates for removal or re-engineering. There
may be many process options for supplying data and responding to decisions made. In particular, we should look for opportunities for direct integration with external parties to create integrated
industry solutions. This “re-engineering” opportunity offers significant value, but is likely to be missed if analysis of existing use cases is conducted as the primary analysis. For
this reason, we do not consider processes or even use cases to be attractive first order development.

Handover and the SDLC

We can achieve a verified and tested decision model, and its integrated and co-dependent data model, with relatively modest effort – often only a fraction of the cost of traditional
approaches. No system design or coding is required to this point. Most architectural and design options remain open – at this stage even platform is irrelevant. We have, in fact, defined and
constructed a “requirements model? of the core functionality of the system from the business strategy perspective without constraining the technology options. Further, this
“requirements model” is testable and can be proven to be complete, consistent and correct. Even better, we can retain the separate identity of this critical requirement over the long
term, even across multiple implementations – there need never be another legacy system. Using a biological analogy, this is the “DNA” that defines how the organization is operated
irrespective of how it is implemented in terms of platform or system. Implementation is now of little interest to those business users who are responsible for decisioning – we have a clear
and well defined handover point to begin the traditional development cycle. It is feasible, even desirable, to simply hand over the decision model and fact model to systems designers as their
starting point.
This highlights a critical point. Decision models live outside of any project or process – decision analysis belongs in the inception phase of traditional SDLCs, or
precedes it entirely. By definition, the subsequent system design must be able to supply and receive data that complies with the decisioning schemas. And the system must provide appropriate process
responses to the decisions made. While these processes remain undefined, this is secondary analysis and is tightly bounded by the decision design that precedes it; therefore, it is of comparatively
low risk and, at the same time, it offers rich opportunities for business process re-engineering. The traditional systems development cycle is then used to design, build and/or reuse various
software components (the plumbing) as appropriate to support the decisioning requirements.


The decision-centric development approach offers a significant advance on traditional development methodologies by focusing on a “missing link” between business strategy and operational
systems – the decision model. The decision model is a new and important requirements artifact that is accessible and understood by both business and development practitioners, giving rise to
a previously unobtainable level of shared understanding that can help bridge the gap between business strategies and the systems and databases that support them.

End Note:

  1. The Object Management Group (OMG) is a non-profit computer industry specifications consortium. Its members define and maintain the Unified Modelling Language (UML). The UML is the OMG’s
    most-used specification, applying to application structure, behaviour, and architecture, as well as business process and data structure. OMG’s UMLv1.5, section 3.22.3 appears to exclude the
    entire class of business rules from the methodology: “Additional compartments may be supplied as a tool extension to show other pre-defined or user defined model properties (for example
    to show business rules…) …but UML does not define them…”

Share this post

Mark Norton

Mark Norton

Mark has 30 years development experience, mostly on enterprise scale, mission-critical systems in finance, insurance, government, and health administration. In 2001, Mark established Idiom Ltd. to develop and market tools and techniques in support of the decisioning concept. Through joint project participation with integration partners, these tools and techniques have been personally developed and tested on dozens of projects to deliver the pragmatic and conceptually sound decision-centric development approach as described in this article. Mark may be contacted at



scroll to top