Pulsebook
Development practices, workflows, and technical architecture guide for Equevu
Decision Making & Comparisons
Purpose
Document important technical and business decisions to maintain transparency and help future team members understand why choices were made.
Simple Comparison Template
Use this template when choosing between multiple options:
Decision: [What are we deciding?]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Decision Maker(s): [Names]
Stakeholders: [Who needs to know]
Options Comparison
| Criteria | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | $ | $$ | $$$ |
| Implementation Time | 1 week | 2 weeks | 3 days |
| Maintenance | Low | Medium | High |
| Performance | Good | Excellent | Fair |
| Team Experience | High | Low | Medium |
| Scalability | Limited | Excellent | Good |
| Support | Community | Enterprise | None |
Pros and Cons
Option A: [Name]
Pros:
Cons:
Option B: [Name]
Pros:
Cons:
Option C: [Name]
Pros:
Cons:
Decision
We chose: [Option X]
Why: [Brief explanation of the reasoning]
When to Document Decisions
Document decisions for:
- Choosing between technologies or frameworks
- Database or infrastructure changes
- Build vs buy decisions
- Major architectural changes
- Tool or service selections
- API design choices
- Security approach changes
Quick Decision Record
For smaller decisions, use this simplified format:
**Decision:** What we decided to do
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Why:** One-line reasoning
**Who:** Decision maker
Example: Database Selection
Decision: Choose Database for Transaction Data
Date: 2024-01-15
Decision Maker(s): Tech Lead, Backend Team
Stakeholders: CEO, Operations Manager
Options Comparison
| Criteria | PostgreSQL | MongoDB | DynamoDB |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | $ | $$ | $$$ |
| Implementation Time | 1 week | 2 weeks | 3 days |
| ACID Compliance | Yes | No | Limited |
| SQL Support | Yes | No | No |
| Team Experience | High | Medium | Low |
| Scalability | Good | Excellent | Excellent |
| Backup/Recovery | Excellent | Good | Good |
Pros and Cons
Option A: PostgreSQL
Pros:
- Team has extensive experience
- ACID compliant for financial data
- Excellent Django ORM support
- Cost-effective
Cons:
- Vertical scaling limitations
- Requires more ops management
Option B: MongoDB
Pros:
- Flexible schema
- Good for rapid development
- Horizontal scaling
Cons:
- Not ACID compliant
- Team needs training
- More expensive
Option C: DynamoDB
Pros:
- Fully managed
- Auto-scaling
- High availability
Cons:
- Vendor lock-in
- Limited query capabilities
- Most expensive option
Decision
We chose: PostgreSQL
Why: Best fit for financial data with ACID compliance, team expertise, and cost-effectiveness. Django ORM integration is excellent.
Best Practices
- Document quickly - Capture decisions while context is fresh
- Be concise - Focus on key factors that drove the decision
- Include numbers - Add costs, timelines, performance metrics when available
- Name names - Record who made the decision for future questions
- Link to details - Reference JIRA tickets, RFCs, or discussions
Where to Store
- Save decision records in Confluence under “Decisions” space
- Link from relevant documentation
- Share summary in Teams Decisions channel
- Reference in sprint retrospectives