Razzell ValentineFounder | Operational Intelligence ™ Advisor| Nexum Suum Inc.New Jersey, United States
One question has been on my mind lately.
Organizations have become very good at documenting schedules, budgets, risks, issues, lessons learned, and change requests.
But I wonder if we’re documenting the most important thing.
Why was the decision made?
Years later we can usually determine:
• What happened.
• When it happened.
• Who approved it.
• How much it cost.
Yet it’s often difficult to reconstruct the actual reasoning that led to the decision.
Without that context, future teams inherit conclusions rather than understanding. The same discussions happen again, the same assumptions are challenged again, and valuable organizational knowledge quietly disappears as people transition into new roles or leave the organization.
I’m curious how others approach this.
Does your organization intentionally preserve the rationale behind major project decisions, or is that knowledge mostly retained through individual experience and conversations?
I’d enjoy hearing how different PMOs, project managers, and executives are addressing this challenge.
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This raises an important question.
Perhaps the real challenge is not preserving decision rationale, but ensuring that it is deliberately constructed before there is anything to preserve.
If assumptions, alternatives, trade-offs and uncertainties are not captured as decisions evolve, future teams inherit well-documented conclusions without understanding the reasoning that produced them. Reconstructing that logic afterwards is rarely complete and is often influenced by hindsight.
Perhaps the PMO's role is evolving beyond preserving project knowledge towards preserving organisational judgment. After all, the greatest value is not remembering past decisions, but enabling better future decisions through the quality of the reasoning they leave behind.
...
1 reply by Razzell Valentine
Jun 30, 2026 5:57 AM
Razzell Valentine
...
Luis,
I really appreciate this perspective because I think you’ve identified an important distinction.
I agree that preserving judgment begins long before a decision is made.
One realization that led me to develop the CTS™ (Critical Thinking System™) methodology was that organizations often document outcomes exceptionally well, but the reasoning process itself is either informal or never explicitly constructed.
By the time someone asks, “Why did we make this decision?” years later, they’re often trying to reconstruct logic that was never intentionally captured in the first place.
That’s why I’ve been thinking of CTS™ less as a documentation framework and more as a decision-governance methodology.
Its purpose is to guide how operational reasoning is developed, challenged, validated, and documented before execution—not simply archive decisions afterward.
In that sense, preservation is only one phase of a larger lifecycle.
The methodology first helps organizations construct defensible judgment through evidence, context, assumptions, alternatives, trade-offs, uncertainty, and verification. Only then does it preserve that reasoning as organizational knowledge.
Your observation also resonates with something I’ve been exploring: perhaps the next evolution of PMOs isn’t simply managing projects or preserving project artifacts, but governing how organizations think before they act.
I appreciate you sharing this perspective. It’s given me another dimension to consider as the methodology continues to evolve.
Saving Changes...
Olivia bennettPm-tool-insightsAustin,Texas, United States
I completely agree. I've found that documenting what was decided is much easier than documenting why it was decided. That context is often what future teams need the most.
Even a simple decision log capturing assumptions, alternatives considered, and key trade-offs can prevent teams from repeating the same discussions months later.
I'm curious whether others have made decision rationale a formal part of their governance process or if it's still captured mainly through meeting notes.
...
1 reply by Razzell Valentine
Jun 30, 2026 5:58 AM
Razzell Valentine
...
Olivia,
I completely agree.
I’ve found that organizations generally do a good job documenting what happened, but much less attention is given to documenting why it happened.
In my experience, assumptions, alternatives considered, operational constraints, trade-offs, uncertainties, and rejected options are often discussed during meetings but rarely become part of the permanent operational record.
Months or years later, teams inherit the decision without the reasoning that justified it.
One of the goals behind the CTS™ methodology is to make that reasoning a structured part of the decision process rather than something left to meeting notes or institutional memory.
I appreciate you bringing up the idea of a formal decision rationale. It aligns closely with the direction I’m exploring.
Decisions at which stage of a project? Is this an organization where the PMO is involved in discussions deciding which projects to pursue, or are they notified post-approval? Obviously, you can't capture decisions made before you are involved. You can ask for the information; you might have to train the decision-makers to provide it.
During a project, the project manager should be making sure key points and decisions are captured, including the rationale. If it's a meeting where the PM is not present but someone else from the PMO is, that person is responsible (not all decisions that affect projects are made at the project level).
The first thing that came to mind as I read the post was scope change management. Not every organization has a formal scope change management process, and not every change needs a formal approval, but for a major project decision, I would expect a good scope change management process to capture each of the points you mentioned, including why the decision was made and the impact of both making and not making the change. There isn't always time for an in depth impact analysis, but impact should at least be part of the conversation.
...
1 reply by Razzell Valentine
Jun 30, 2026 5:58 AM
Razzell Valentine
...
Aaron,
You raise several excellent questions.
One of the challenges I’ve observed is that many of the most significant operational decisions actually begin before a formal project exists.
They often emerge through engineering discussions, maintenance planning, executive meetings, budget reviews, regulatory findings, or operational events. By the time a project is approved, much of the original reasoning has already occurred.
That observation is one of the reasons I’m developing the CTS™ methodology.
Rather than beginning with the project itself, it focuses on governing how operational reasoning is constructed throughout the entire decision lifecycle—from identifying context and evaluating evidence through implementation, evaluation, and institutionalizing the knowledge that results.
I also agree that governance and training are critical. Capturing decision rationale consistently requires both a structured process and a culture that values documenting the reasoning behind important decisions.
Thank you for expanding the discussion. Your perspective adds another valuable dimension to the problem.
Saving Changes...
Razzell ValentineFounder | Operational Intelligence ™ Advisor| Nexum Suum Inc.New Jersey, United States
Jun 29, 2026 7:53 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
This raises an important question.
Perhaps the real challenge is not preserving decision rationale, but ensuring that it is deliberately constructed before there is anything to preserve.
If assumptions, alternatives, trade-offs and uncertainties are not captured as decisions evolve, future teams inherit well-documented conclusions without understanding the reasoning that produced them. Reconstructing that logic afterwards is rarely complete and is often influenced by hindsight.
Perhaps the PMO's role is evolving beyond preserving project knowledge towards preserving organisational judgment. After all, the greatest value is not remembering past decisions, but enabling better future decisions through the quality of the reasoning they leave behind.
Luis,
I really appreciate this perspective because I think you’ve identified an important distinction.
I agree that preserving judgment begins long before a decision is made.
One realization that led me to develop the CTS™ (Critical Thinking System™) methodology was that organizations often document outcomes exceptionally well, but the reasoning process itself is either informal or never explicitly constructed.
By the time someone asks, “Why did we make this decision?” years later, they’re often trying to reconstruct logic that was never intentionally captured in the first place.
That’s why I’ve been thinking of CTS™ less as a documentation framework and more as a decision-governance methodology.
Its purpose is to guide how operational reasoning is developed, challenged, validated, and documented before execution—not simply archive decisions afterward.
In that sense, preservation is only one phase of a larger lifecycle.
The methodology first helps organizations construct defensible judgment through evidence, context, assumptions, alternatives, trade-offs, uncertainty, and verification. Only then does it preserve that reasoning as organizational knowledge.
Your observation also resonates with something I’ve been exploring: perhaps the next evolution of PMOs isn’t simply managing projects or preserving project artifacts, but governing how organizations think before they act.
I appreciate you sharing this perspective. It’s given me another dimension to consider as the methodology continues to evolve. Saving Changes...
Razzell ValentineFounder | Operational Intelligence ™ Advisor| Nexum Suum Inc.New Jersey, United States
Jun 29, 2026 1:34 PM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
Decisions at which stage of a project? Is this an organization where the PMO is involved in discussions deciding which projects to pursue, or are they notified post-approval? Obviously, you can't capture decisions made before you are involved. You can ask for the information; you might have to train the decision-makers to provide it.
During a project, the project manager should be making sure key points and decisions are captured, including the rationale. If it's a meeting where the PM is not present but someone else from the PMO is, that person is responsible (not all decisions that affect projects are made at the project level).
The first thing that came to mind as I read the post was scope change management. Not every organization has a formal scope change management process, and not every change needs a formal approval, but for a major project decision, I would expect a good scope change management process to capture each of the points you mentioned, including why the decision was made and the impact of both making and not making the change. There isn't always time for an in depth impact analysis, but impact should at least be part of the conversation.
Aaron,
You raise several excellent questions.
One of the challenges I’ve observed is that many of the most significant operational decisions actually begin before a formal project exists.
They often emerge through engineering discussions, maintenance planning, executive meetings, budget reviews, regulatory findings, or operational events. By the time a project is approved, much of the original reasoning has already occurred.
That observation is one of the reasons I’m developing the CTS™ methodology.
Rather than beginning with the project itself, it focuses on governing how operational reasoning is constructed throughout the entire decision lifecycle—from identifying context and evaluating evidence through implementation, evaluation, and institutionalizing the knowledge that results.
I also agree that governance and training are critical. Capturing decision rationale consistently requires both a structured process and a culture that values documenting the reasoning behind important decisions.
Thank you for expanding the discussion. Your perspective adds another valuable dimension to the problem. Saving Changes...
Razzell ValentineFounder | Operational Intelligence ™ Advisor| Nexum Suum Inc.New Jersey, United States
Jun 29, 2026 9:27 AM
Replying to Olivia bennett
...
I completely agree. I've found that documenting what was decided is much easier than documenting why it was decided. That context is often what future teams need the most.
Even a simple decision log capturing assumptions, alternatives considered, and key trade-offs can prevent teams from repeating the same discussions months later.
I'm curious whether others have made decision rationale a formal part of their governance process or if it's still captured mainly through meeting notes.
Olivia,
I completely agree.
I’ve found that organizations generally do a good job documenting what happened, but much less attention is given to documenting why it happened.
In my experience, assumptions, alternatives considered, operational constraints, trade-offs, uncertainties, and rejected options are often discussed during meetings but rarely become part of the permanent operational record.
Months or years later, teams inherit the decision without the reasoning that justified it.
One of the goals behind the CTS™ methodology is to make that reasoning a structured part of the decision process rather than something left to meeting notes or institutional memory.
I appreciate you bringing up the idea of a formal decision rationale. It aligns closely with the direction I’m exploring. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
The rationale behind key decisions is often discussed but not documented in a way that's easy to revisit later. Even a brief record of the options considered, assumptions, and reasons for the decision can save future teams from repeating the same conversations and help them understand the context, not just the outcome. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
