# BA-T03 — Cycles, decisions and change: completed example

Adrian Sutherland · Version 1.0 · Refreshed September 2026

© 2005–2026 Adrian Sutherland.
Source page: https://architectureportal.org/assets/business-architecture

Fictional teaching example. No trial or acceptance check has actually been run.

## Process areas

A Simple Architectural Framework (ASAF) describes four continuing areas of work.

Proposed mapping for this fictional change. A review can cover several areas;
accepted decisions remain in place unless a finding reopens them.

| ASAF process area | Work in this example | Information to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Visioning | Agree the intended learner outcome, service scope and future responsibilities. | Purpose, outcomes, definitions, principles and alternatives. |
| Transforming | Prepare the process-only trial, change the affected work and check the handover. | Change decisions, affected records, checks and readiness. |
| Operating | Resolve cases under agreed rules and observe ownership gaps or delays. | Case history, support knowledge and improvement proposals. |
| Governing | Set decision authority and review shared rules, exceptions and trial acceptance. | Accepted decisions, reasons, exceptions and review triggers. |

## Trigger and accepted starting position

D1 (Process-only trial) responds to unclear ownership of course-cancellation resolution. Example
baseline B1 proposes O1 (Accepted resolution), P1 (Learner agreement), R1 (Continuous ownership) and the responsibility relationship A1 (Responsibility and information). A
fortnightly service review could cover these decisions.

## Methodology configuration

The fortnightly service review brings together business decisions, delivery
acceptance and learning from daily use. The case record supplies observations;
the service brief retains agreed purpose and responsibilities.

### Dials

Illustrative profile: review open cases daily and review a trial after two
weeks. Batch: one cancellation path and shared record. Booking and course leads
agree the handover. A case owner can offer approved alternatives, while policy
and partner responsibility return to the service owner. Start manually and
check agreement and ownership. Correct local records locally; reopen shared
responsibility where findings require it.

## Options and judgement

Compare a process-only trial, later support in existing booking software and
a wider service replacement. D1 proposes the first option so its limited scope
can be tested.
The service owner would accept the trial and its conditions.

## Retain, change and check

D1 affects PR1 (Resolution process), RO1 (Case owner) and I1 (Cancellation case record); retain O1 and P1. V1 (Two-handover check) specifies a walkthrough across
two staff handovers. At each handover the receiver must identify the owner,
learner's accepted choice and next action from I1. Conflicting agreement means
the case remains unresolved. Actual result: unknown; check not run.

Hypothetical L1 (Partner confirmation gap): a partner has not accepted responsibility to confirm the
replacement booking. Escalate to the service owner. Proposed B2 adds partner
acceptance and confirmation responsibility to A1/I1 and extends V1. Retain the
internal case owner, O1 and P1. Keep partner work outside the trial until those
responsibilities and checks are accepted.

## History

B1 and B2 are illustrative states. Keep D1 and the reason
for revisiting it. The service review records L1 and the unresolved partner
question. Measures remain in the brief/review; useful-life results are unknown.