We often stumble over the invisible webs that drive decision making. Reflecting upon past decisions, we wonder "How did we come to this?". Why do others not see the obvious flaws in their decision making? Have you been forced to make a bad decision, hoping the future will provide a path to recovery?

This talk is about the anatomy of a decision. We'll examine its parts and their relationships. We'll learn about the context of a decision in a socio-technical system, and how we can create and distribute knowledge to effectively drive decision making.

Residuality Theory has disrupted the Software Architecture scene, presenting a new approach to architecture based on the complexity sciences and random simulation. It aims to help architects to design an architecture that is statistically more resilient to a broader range of possible futures.

In parallel, practices like the Architecture Advice Process and the application of Systems Thinking consider architecture through the lens of how organisations practically make and execute architectural decisions.

Are these approaches compatible?

We aim to understand how using Residuality fits into our toolbox, by reporting our findings in using it in two different settings. As practitioners, we have been wondering: How do we take this architecture and use it to deliver business value? How do we communicate the decisions that led to it, when the design process is so new and unfamiliar to the broader organisation? How do we wrestle with the inevitable trade-offs that must be made when building real operational systems based on this vision of a more adaptive capacity?

Drawing on two comparative experiences applying Residuality in the design and modernisation of systems in two separate businesses, we will share lessons learnt and thoughts on how to practically make use of this new approach.

Residuality Theory has disrupted the Software Architecture scene, presenting a new approach to architecture based on the complexity sciences and random simulation. It aims to help architects to design an architecture that is statistically more resilient to a broader range of possible futures.

In parallel, practices like the Architecture Advice Process and the application of Systems Thinking consider architecture through the lens of how organisations practically make and execute architectural decisions.

Are these approaches compatible?

We aim to understand how using Residuality fits into our toolbox, by reporting our findings in using it in two different settings. As practitioners, we have been wondering: How do we take this architecture and use it to deliver business value? How do we communicate the decisions that led to it, when the design process is so new and unfamiliar to the broader organisation? How do we wrestle with the inevitable trade-offs that must be made when building real operational systems based on this vision of a more adaptive capacity?

Drawing on two comparative experiences applying Residuality in the design and modernisation of systems in two separate businesses, we will share lessons learnt and thoughts on how to practically make use of this new approach.