Architecture Decision Record: [ADR-XXX]

Architecture Decision Record: [ADR-XXX]

TOGAF Architecture Decision Record Phase: [ADM Phase where this decision was made] Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

Title

[Short, descriptive title of the architecture decision — e.g., "Adopt API Gateway Pattern for Service Integration"]

Status

[Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by ADR-XXX]

Context

[Describe the situation and forces that led to this decision. Include:

  • What is the architecture problem or question being addressed?
  • What stakeholder concerns drive this decision? (Reference specific concerns from the Architecture Vision)
  • What constraints exist? (Business, technical, regulatory, budget, timeline)
  • What architecture principles are relevant? (Reference specific principles by name)
  • What is the current-state context? (What exists today that this decision affects?)

Be specific. A reader should understand why this decision was necessary without needing to read other documents.]

Decision

[State the decision clearly and unambiguously. Use active voice:

"We will adopt [approach/technology/pattern] for [scope/context]."

Include:

  • What exactly is being decided
  • The scope of the decision (which domains, systems, or business units it applies to)
  • Any conditions or constraints on the decision
  • The effective date and review date (if applicable)]

Consequences

[Describe the results of this decision — both positive and negative. Be honest about trade-offs.

Positive consequences:

  • [What improves, what capability is gained, what risk is reduced]

Negative consequences:

  • [What becomes harder, what cost is incurred, what flexibility is lost]

Risks:

  • [What could go wrong, what assumptions might prove incorrect]

Follow-up actions:

  • [What needs to happen as a result of this decision — other decisions triggered, standards to update, teams to notify]]

Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1: [Name]

  • Description: [What this alternative entails]
  • Pros: [Benefits of this approach]
  • Cons: [Drawbacks of this approach]
  • Reason rejected: [Specific reason this was not selected]

Alternative 2: [Name]

  • Description: [What this alternative entails]
  • Pros: [Benefits of this approach]
  • Cons: [Drawbacks of this approach]
  • Reason rejected: [Specific reason this was not selected]

[Add more alternatives as needed. Every significant decision should have at least two alternatives documented.]

Compliance

  • Architecture Principles: [List which principles this decision supports]
  • Standards: [Reference applicable entries from the Standards Information Base]
  • Governance: [Note any governance board review required or dispensation needed]

Related Decisions

  • [ADR-XXX: Related decision title — describe the relationship]

Recorded by: [Digital talent name / role] Reviewed by: [Stakeholder or architecture board]