DO N⛔T use any reductionist approach to model business decisions ever! Or you will pay a significant debt.
✨For modeling decisions, we MUST use decomposition to breakdown them into smaller, more easy-to-understand decision units, and as a result, we will create a “Decision Graph”.
Why is that important? Let's start with an example.
Imagine we have a decision “A” that is decomposed into decisions “B” and “C” where in a graph, we have “A” at the top (root level) and two other decisions “B” and “C” as nodes connected to the root “A”. This means decision “A” depends on decisions “B” and “C”.
Simple, right?
What can go wrong if we model it in a reductionist view based on “sequence of activities” in a form of a flow model such as process, activity diagram, workflow etc.?
🚩Loss of knowledge and context: Process flows like “A->B->C” or “A->C->B” simplify execution but overlook how decisions are structurally connected. This flattens the hierarchy, leading to loss of critical structural knowledge.
This has many implications down the track as well…
🚩Incorrect and incomplete view — In any flow model, choosing a sequence like ABC or ACB is both incorrect, as order doesn't matter. At best is incomplete, as it's just one of many possible options.
🚩Bad execution performance — When order doesn't matter, the decision engine can run “B” and “C” in parallel. Forcing a specific sequence limits performance by executing steps in order, reducing runtime efficiency.
🚩 Very difficult to update — Updating a decision graph is simple, but in a flow model, any change requires reordering all steps, making a decision-making scenario difficult to modify.
🚩 No opportunity in reengineering — Decision reengineering relies on understanding dependencies and relationships in the hierarchy. Flattening the hierarchy loses this context, making refactoring and improving decisions impossible.
🚩 Impossible for situation-aware decisions — The reductionist models (e.g., process, flow, etc.) assume that all decisions follow a single path. They don’t account for situation-aware decisions for dynamic nodes, evolving conditions, or different outcomes that might require alternative paths or logic.
I can still add another five issues with the reductionist approach, but let's leave it here for now!
💣The models presented by the reductionist approach (process, activity diagram, workflow, etc.) are incomplete at best (and mostly incorrect) and suffer from performance at runtime. They don't allow for decision reengineering and situation-aware decisions. They are very difficult to update in changing and dynamic environments.
➡️Learn more at https://lnkd.in/g9NQ8R_F
–
Follow me if you’re looking for unfiltered insights into DecisionIntelligence, AI, and DecisionAutomation. Hit the 🔔 on my profile to get notified about my daily posts.
Posted here.
Published May 6th, 2025 at 07:30 am
