본문으로 건너뛰기

Decision Log

Archive of major organizational decisions with context, rationale, and outcomes

개요​

Kyndof's decision log captures significant organizational choices—strategic pivots, architectural commitments, policy changes, and major investments. Unlike project archives focused on execution, the decision log emphasizes the reasoning behind choices: what options existed, why we chose this path, what we expected to happen, and what actually occurred.

Organizations forget their reasoning faster than their decisions. Six months after choosing an architecture, teams question the choice without remembering the constraints that made it optimal at the time. Decision logs prevent this organizational amnesia by preserving not just what was decided, but why.

The decision log serves multiple audiences: leadership reviewing strategic patterns, teams understanding system rationale, new members learning organizational thinking, and future decision-makers seeking precedent. A well-maintained decision log compounds value over time as patterns emerge across multiple decisions.

Decision Types and Scope​

Not every choice belongs in the decision log. Kyndof captures decisions with lasting impact, significant resources, or broad organizational scope:

Strategic Decisions​

Choices about markets, products, business models, or organizational direction. Strategic decisions shape what Kyndof becomes over years. Examples: entering new markets, pivoting product focus, changing go-to-market approach, or restructuring the organization.

Strategic decisions receive the highest scrutiny, involve executive leadership, and undergo thorough alternative analysis. These decisions explicitly connect to organizational goals and include validation plans.

Architectural Decisions​

Technical choices with long-term implications: technology selections, system designs, integration approaches, or platform commitments. Architectural decisions accumulate into technical strategy, so documenting rationale prevents future regret when constraints change.

Kyndof uses Architecture Decision Records (ADR) format for architectural decisions, capturing context, decision, consequences, and alternatives in structured markdown.

Policy Decisions​

Rules governing how Kyndof operates: approval workflows, resource allocation criteria, security requirements, or process standards. Policy decisions affect everyone and create behavioral expectations, so transparency in rationale increases acceptance and compliance.

Policy decisions explicitly address edge cases and exception handling to prevent policy erosion through accumulated special cases.

Investment Decisions​

Significant resource commitments: major projects, technology purchases, partnership agreements, or hiring plans. Investment decisions allocate limited resources, so documenting expected returns enables later validation of decision quality.

Investment decisions include success criteria and review dates for post-implementation assessment.

Decision Record Structure​

Kyndof decision records follow a consistent structure adapted from Architecture Decision Records:

Title and Metadata​

Descriptive title conveying the decision essence. Metadata includes decision date, decision makers (RABSIC roles), status (proposed/accepted/deprecated/superseded), and relationships to other decisions.

Clear titles enable quick scanning: "Adopt React for Web Frontend" beats "Frontend Framework Decision."

Context Section​

Why this decision matters now. Context explains the problem being solved, current situation, constraints in play, and forces creating decision pressure. Context prevents future misinterpretation by capturing the specific circumstances that shaped options.

Good context sections help future readers understand why this seemed like the right choice at the time, even if circumstances later change.

Decision Section​

The actual choice made, stated clearly and unambiguously. Decision sections specify not just what was chosen, but key parameters, boundaries, and principles guiding implementation.

Vague decisions create confusion; specific decisions enable confident execution.

Consequences Section​

Expected outcomes, both positive and negative. Honest consequence assessment acknowledges tradeoffs rather than pretending decisions have no downsides. Consequences include business impact, technical implications, organizational changes, and risks accepted.

Separating intended from actual consequences (added later) creates accountability and learning.

Alternatives Considered​

Other viable options evaluated before making this choice. For each alternative, document the approach, its pros/cons, and why it wasn't selected. Alternatives section prevents future second-guessing and provides context for potential course corrections.

Decisions with no documented alternatives raise questions about whether adequate consideration occurred.

Validation Plan​

How Kyndof will know if this decision proved correct. Validation plans include success metrics, review dates, and criteria for reconsidering the choice. This transforms decisions from one-time events into accountable commitments with measurable outcomes.

Decisions without validation plans can persist long after proving ineffective.

2026 Major Decisions​

ADR-001: Knowledge Graph Architecture​

Date: 2026-02-01 Accountable: CTO Status: Accepted and implementing

Decision: Adopt markdown-based knowledge graph architecture for World Model entity and relationship management.

Context: The organization needed sustainable, scalable knowledge management to capture entities (people, companies, projects, concepts) and their relationships. Previous unstructured approaches caused context loss, weak relationships, and poor agent utilization.

Chosen Approach: Markdown files in git with structured templates for entities, timeline-first organization, bidirectional linking syntax, and date-based archival for interactions and decisions.

Key Tradeoffs:

  • ✅ Human readable, git-native, low barrier to entry, flexible structure
  • ❌ No schema validation, manual bidirectionality, link fragility, requires discipline

Alternatives Rejected:

  • Structured database (PostgreSQL/Neo4j) - too heavyweight, poor version control
  • JSON/YAML files - less human readable, harder to edit
  • Wiki system (Notion/Obsidian) - vendor lock-in, not git-native
  • RDF/Semantic Web - excessive complexity for use case

Validation Plan: Success measured by entity count (target: 100+ in 6 months), source attribution percentage (target: 80%+), broken link rate (target: \<5%), and daily agent usage for context.

Current Status: Foundation complete with entity templates and examples. Tooling development underway for validation and querying. Early adoption showing promise with high-quality entity documentation.

Learnings: Starting simple with markdown proves more sustainable than complex systems requiring specialized tooling. Template-by-example approach (comprehensive example entities) more effective than abstract specifications for maintaining consistency.

Decision Making Process​

Kyndof follows a structured process for major decisions ensuring thoroughness without bureaucratic paralysis:

1. Problem Framing​

Before considering solutions, clearly define the problem requiring a decision. Problem framing involves the Analyst agent for complex situations, ensuring comprehensive understanding before jumping to solutions.

Poor problem framing leads to solving the wrong problem well.

2. Alternative Generation​

Systematically generate viable options. Use the Planner agent for strategic decisions to ensure creative alternatives beyond obvious choices. Aim for 3-5 serious alternatives before evaluation.

Single-option "decisions" often reflect predetermined conclusions rather than genuine choice.

3. RABSIC Assignment​

Determine accountability structure using the RABSIC-Engine agent. Every decision needs exactly one Accountable party, identified Consulted experts, and clarity on who does implementation work (Responsible) versus who just needs notification (Informed).

Unclear accountability causes decision paralysis or conflict.

4. Impact Analysis​

Evaluate each alternative's consequences using the Architect agent for technical decisions or Analyst agent for business decisions. Impact analysis considers multiple dimensions: business value, technical debt, organizational change, risk exposure, and resource requirements.

Decisions made without understanding consequences frequently prove regrettable.

5. Stakeholder Consultation​

Engage Consulted parties before deciding. Consultation is genuine two-way communication where stakeholder input shapes the decision. Distinguish consultation (input requested before decision) from information (notification after decision).

Skipping consultation on decisions affecting stakeholders creates resistance and misalignment.

6. Decision Approval​

The Accountable party makes the final call based on analysis and consultation. Approval is explicit and documented, not implicit or assumed.

Ambiguous approval status causes confusion about whether decisions are actually final.

7. Communication​

Inform all affected parties after the decision. The Back-Writer agent handles decision communication via Notion posts and Slack announcements. Communication includes rationale, not just the choice itself.

Poorly communicated decisions generate confusion, rumors, and resistance.

8. Validation Tracking​

Establish metrics and review dates for assessing decision outcomes. The Analyst agent tracks validation metrics and flags decisions not meeting success criteria for review.

Decisions without validation persist regardless of effectiveness.

Decision Review and Revision​

Decisions aren't permanent—they respond to changing circumstances:

Scheduled Reviews​

High-impact decisions undergo scheduled reviews at defined intervals: strategic decisions quarterly, architectural decisions semi-annually, policy decisions annually. Reviews assess whether assumptions remain valid, outcomes match expectations, and the decision should persist.

Trigger-Based Reviews​

Significant events can trigger unscheduled decision reviews: market shifts, technology changes, competitive moves, or internal capability changes. Trigger reviews determine whether changing circumstances invalidate previous decisions.

Decision Deprecation​

When decisions prove ineffective or circumstances change, explicitly deprecate them rather than letting them quietly fade. Deprecation records why the decision no longer applies and what replaces it.

Deprecated decisions without documentation create confusion about current policy.

Superseding Decisions​

New decisions may supersede previous ones. Clear superseding relationships prevent conflicting active decisions and show decision evolution over time.

Learning from Decisions​

The decision log's ultimate value lies in pattern recognition and organizational learning:

Decision Quality Assessment​

Regularly assess decision outcomes against initial expectations. Which decisions succeeded? Which failed? What patterns distinguish good decisions from poor ones? Decision quality assessment improves future decision-making by surfacing what works.

Assumption Testing​

Track which assumptions proved accurate and which didn't. Assumption tracking reveals systematic biases: consistent underestimation of integration complexity, overoptimism about adoption rates, or unrealistic timeline expectations.

Pattern Recognition​

Analyze decisions over time to identify recurring patterns: decision types that consistently succeed or fail, stakeholder configurations that work well, alternative types that prove superior, or contexts where fast decisions beat thorough analysis.

The Analyst agent performs quarterly meta-analysis across decision history, surfacing patterns invisible in individual decisions.

Process Improvement​

Use decision outcomes to refine the decision-making process itself. If decisions with particular characteristics (rushed timeline, single alternative, skip stakeholder input) consistently fail, adjust process requirements.

Common Decision Pitfalls​

Kyndof has identified several anti-patterns that degrade decision quality:

Analysis Paralysis​

Over-analyzing decisions with limited downside or easy reversibility. Not every choice warrants extensive study. Small, reversible decisions benefit from fast execution over thorough analysis.

Use decision impact and reversibility to calibrate analysis depth.

Premature Commitment​

Deciding before understanding the problem or generating alternatives. Rushing to solutions feels productive but often solves wrong problems or misses better options.

Require problem framing and multiple alternatives before approving major decisions.

Consultative Theater​

Going through consultation motions without genuine consideration of stakeholder input. Consultative theater damages trust and wastes everyone's time.

Consulted parties should see their input reflected in the decision or understand why it wasn't incorporated.

Consensus Seeking​

Trying to get everyone to agree rather than making clear accountable decisions. Consensus has value, but requiring it grants veto power to every stakeholder and creates lowest-common-denominator outcomes.

One Accountable party makes the call after consultation; consensus is nice but not required.

Implicit Decisions​

Letting choices happen through inaction rather than explicit decision. Implicit decisions prevent stakeholder input, obscure rationale, and create ambiguity about current policy.

Make decisions explicit with documented rationale even when the choice seems obvious.

Validation Avoidance​

Skipping outcome tracking because facing potential failure feels uncomfortable. Validation avoidance prevents learning and perpetuates ineffective decisions.

Validation isn't blame assignment—it's learning. Track outcomes regardless of who made the decision.

관련 문서​