Decision Framing
Define the decision to be made, the accountable stakeholders, the business outcomes, the constraints, and the approval criteria.
OutputDecision charter and approval map
Offering
Choose the AI platform path with the evidence needed to defend the decision.
Graph42 Advisory helps enterprise teams compare AI platforms, gateway products, build paths, and operating models through a nine-phase evaluation. The work concludes with a weighted capability model, cost and risk analysis, architecture validation, and a written recommendation.
The decision problem
A platform decision becomes expensive long before the contract is signed.
Demonstrations show a product at its best. Internal teams evaluate from different priorities. Cost models exclude operating responsibility. Architecture and security questions arrive after preference has already formed.
The result can be a recommendation that sounds confident but cannot show how the shortlist, weights, evidence, assumptions, and tradeoffs produced it.
Decision by presentationFeatures remembered, weights implied, assumptions scattered, dissent lost.
Decision by disclosed criteriaOutcomes defined, evidence traced, costs qualified, tradeoffs retained.
Evaluation methodology
Nine phases from decision framing to a traceable recommendation.
The method is designed as an inspectable work product. A buyer can see what question each phase answers and what record it produces.
01–03 · Frame04–06 · Evaluate07–09 · Validate
- 01Decision FramingDecision charter and approval map
- 02Use-Case and Outcome DefinitionPrioritized use-case and outcome register
- 03Current-State and Constraint AuditCurrent-state and constraint record
- 04Capability Model and WeightingWeighted capability model
- 05Market Scan and ShortlistShortlist with inclusion and exclusion reasoning
- 06Evidence-Based EvaluationScored evidence register
- 07Architecture, Security, and Governance ValidationArchitecture and control validation record
- 08Pilot, TCO, and Build-versus-Buy AnalysisPilot findings and comparative cost model
- 09Recommendation, Roadmap, and Decision RecordRecommendation and decision record
Phases 01–03
Frame the decision
The evaluation begins by agreeing on the decision, the outcomes, and the constraints before products enter the conversation.
Use-Case and Outcome Definition
Identify priority use cases and the operational, financial, technical, and user outcomes the selected path must support.
OutputPrioritized use-case and outcome register
Current-State and Constraint Audit
Assess the existing architecture, data environment, delivery model, contracts, security requirements, and organizational constraints.
OutputCurrent-state and constraint record
Phases 04–06
Evaluate the options
The shortlist is compared through disclosed criteria, visible weights, and evidence that can be inspected.
Capability Model and Weighting
Create the evaluation matrix, define measurable criteria, disclose scoring weights, and document assumptions before options are scored.
OutputWeighted capability model
Market Scan and Shortlist
Survey relevant platforms and approaches, apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, and produce a defensible shortlist.
OutputShortlist with inclusion and exclusion reasoning
Evidence-Based Evaluation
Evaluate shortlisted options against documentation, demonstrations, references, tested capabilities, and other permitted primary evidence.
OutputScored evidence register
Phases 07–09
Validate the recommendation
The leading path is tested against architecture, controls, cost, operating responsibility, and the implementation decision it creates.
Architecture, Security, and Governance Validation
Assess integration fit, identity, data protection, model controls, observability, compliance, and operating-model requirements.
OutputArchitecture and control validation record
Pilot, TCO, and Build-versus-Buy Analysis
Validate priority capabilities where needed and reconcile implementation cost, operating cost, risk, and internal-build alternatives.
OutputPilot findings and comparative cost model
Recommendation, Roadmap, and Decision Record
Publish the recommendation, scoring rationale, assumptions, dissenting considerations, implementation roadmap, and traceable decision record.
OutputRecommendation and decision record
Weights + evidence
The scoring model is written before the scores are known.
Criteria are tied to the outcomes and constraints established in the first three phases. Weights are disclosed, evidence quality is labelled, and assumptions remain visible beside the score they affect.
- Business outcomes and architecture constraints shape the criteria
- Weights are agreed before shortlisted options are scored
- Scores resolve to documentation, tests, demonstrations, references, or stated assumptions
- Evidence gaps and dissenting considerations remain in the decision record
- Sensitivity analysis shows where a changed assumption could alter the recommendation
CriterionWeightEvidenceStatus
Architecture fit20%Design review + tested assumptionsTraceable
Security + governance25%Control evidence + policy mappingTraceable
Capability fit25%Demonstration + documentation + testTraceable
Operating cost15%Contract, usage, and staffing assumptionsQualified
Implementation responsibility15%Build, configure, and operate comparisonQualified
Illustrative structure only. Criteria and weights are set during decision framing.
What you receive
A decision package, not a slide that ends with a logo.
The final recommendation preserves the rationale and the responsibilities required to act on it. The work can support implementation by Graph42, an internal team, a selected vendor, or another delivery partner.
01
Decision charter with stakeholders, outcomes, constraints, and approval criteria
02
Weighted capability matrix with scoring logic disclosed before evaluation
03
Evidence register linking scores to permitted source material and tests
04
Architecture, security, governance, and operating-model validation
05
TCO, build-versus-buy, and implementation-responsibility comparison
06
Recommendation, roadmap, assumptions, dissent, and traceable decision record
Inspectable work product
Platform Evaluation Sample
A worked capability matrix, disclosed weighting model, assumptions register, and sample decision record.
When it fits
Use the method when the decision must survive more than the buying meeting.
- A platform, gateway, model, or architecture decision affects more than one team or business capability
- The shortlist is being shaped by demonstrations, existing relationships, or incomplete comparisons
- Security, procurement, finance, architecture, and business stakeholders need one shared decision record
- The organization needs to reconcile product configuration, tailored build, and split implementation paths
- Cost assumptions, operating responsibilities, or migration implications are not yet visible
- The recommendation will need to survive executive, architecture, risk, or investment scrutiny
When the decision is low-risk, reversible, and owned by one team, a nine-phase evaluation may be unnecessary. We will say so.
Engagement
Start with a focused scoping session and a written decision framework.
A typical evaluation runs four to six weeks, depending on shortlist size, evidence access, architecture depth, and whether a focused pilot is required. Pricing is provided after scope and decision rights are clear.
Client inputs
- An accountable sponsor and named decision owner
- Business, architecture, security, procurement, finance, and delivery representatives as required
- Current-state architecture, contracts, policies, usage information, and known constraints
- Access to shortlisted vendors, internal teams, and subject-matter experts during the evaluation window
- Agreement on how confidential or restricted evidence may be handled and retained
Decision at the endProceed, configure, build, negotiate, pilot, revise the shortlist, defer, or stop.