Catalog
method#Architecture#Governance#Delivery#Software Engineering

ADR Workflow

Structured workflow for creating and tracking Architectural Decision Records (ADR).

The ADR workflow is a structured process for creating, maintaining, and tracking Architectural Decision Records.
Established
Medium

Classification

  • Medium
  • Organizational
  • Architectural
  • Intermediate

Technical context

Git repository for version and change trackingIssue tracker (e.g., Jira, GitHub Issues) for linkageDocumentation platform (wiki, Confluence) for overview

Principles & goals

Document decisions concisely, with rationale and versioning.Clear ownership for creating and maintaining ADRs.Treat ADRs as living artifacts: schedule regular reviews and updates.
Discovery
Enterprise, Domain, Team

Use cases & scenarios

Compromises

  • Proliferation of ADRs without quality control leads to information overload.
  • Unclear ownership can result in outdated or conflicting entries.
  • Lack of linkage to implementation and backlog reduces usefulness.
  • Keep ADRs short and focused; include only relevant context.
  • Maintain links to implementation artifacts.
  • Schedule regular reviews in retrospectives or architecture forums.

I/O & resources

  • Problem statement, alternative options, technical analyses
  • Stakeholder feedback, quality requirements, compliance constraints
  • Architecture diagrams, cost/operational estimates
  • Finalized ADR with rationale and consequences
  • Review log and ownership assignments
  • Linked tasks/issues for implementation work

Description

The ADR workflow is a structured process for creating, maintaining, and tracking Architectural Decision Records. It standardizes templates, responsibilities, and review cycles to increase transparency and traceability of architecture decisions. It includes templates, workflow steps, and integration points with issue trackers for repeatable decision-making across teams.

✔

  • Improved traceability of architecture decisions over time.
  • Facilitates onboarding and knowledge transfer.
  • Supports compliance evidence and audit processes.

✖

  • Requires discipline; ADRs quickly become stale without maintenance.
  • Not every minor decision warrants a formal ADR.
  • Can introduce initial overhead for time and reviews.

  • Number of active ADRs

    Counts maintained ADRs over a period to overview documentation density.

  • Time to finalization

    Average time from draft to published ADR.

  • ADR links to implementation

    Share of ADRs linked to issues/PRs/tasks.

Microservice boundary decision

ADR documented splitting a monolith into two services with communication contract.

Authentication provider migration

ADR with migration plan from self‑hosted solution to OAuth provider.

Storage format standardization

ADR defines a unified JSON schema for data persistence.

1

Select or create template, agree on format.

2

Formulate decision question, collect alternatives and criteria.

3

Create draft, perform peer review, assign ownership.

4

Publish ADR, link to issues/tasks and review periodically.

⚠️ Technical debt & bottlenecks

  • Unclear ADRs create long‑term maintenance burden for the team.
  • Unimplemented ADR decisions lead to inconsistent architectures.
  • Missing cleanup processes allow stale decisions to accumulate.
review capacityunclear ownershiplinkage to implementation
  • Using ADR as mere meeting minutes without decision context.
  • Publishing ADRs without deriving implementation steps.
  • Using ADRs as a substitute for automated tests or metrics.
  • Missing links to code/issues reduces practical relevance.
  • No clear revisioning leads to multiple conflicting ADRs.
  • Too rigid templates prevent pragmatic decisions.
Architecture understanding and decision analysisTechnical writing skills and concise documentationFacilitation and review skills with stakeholders
Traceability of architecture decisionsGovernance and compliance requirementsScalability of decision processes across teams
  • • Required tool integration (VCS, issue tracker) must be available.
  • • Organizational agreement on formats and processes is required.
  • • Consider privacy/compliance requirements for sensitive decisions.