Comparative design analysis

Design candidate comparison

Score candidates across effort, maintainability, risk, governance and reuse. AI explains tradeoffs.

Candidates
AI Recommendation
OPT-A — Native OTM Itinerary Constraints scores highest at 80/100. Reuses 2 patterns, lowest residual risk, governance-compliant.
OPT-A AI pick
Native OTM Itinerary Constraints
PR

Lean configuration using standard itinerary + lane constraints. Minimal custom code.

Approach: Out-of-the-box itinerary constraint set + saved condition library.
Effort
64h
Maintain.
88
Op risk
22
Pros
  • Pattern OM-STD-04 reuse (saves 38h)
  • Zero custom Java
  • Audit-friendly
  • Upgrade-safe
Cons
  • Limited to OTM constraint vocabulary
  • Cannot model partner-specific micro rules without sub-projects
Patterns:OM-STD-04PL-CONSTR-11
OPT-B
Rules Engine via Saved Condition Sets
MC

Flexible rule-driven approach. Externalizes business rules into ~40 saved condition sets.

Approach: Heavy use of saved conditions + agent actions driven from sourcing.
Effort
112h
Maintain.
64
Op risk
48
Pros
  • High flexibility for business analysts
  • Rules visible in UI
Cons
  • Performance regressions reported at >12k shipments/day
  • Drift risk in sandbox vs prod
  • Approval chain complexity
Patterns:RE-SAV-09
OPT-C
Custom Planning Engine Extension
AS

Maximum flexibility. Replaces large portions of native planning. Long lifecycle cost.

Approach: Java extension on planning engine + custom XSLT mappers.
Effort
348h
Maintain.
32
Op risk
78
Pros
  • Unconstrained business logic
  • Highest peak performance
Cons
  • Upgrade-blocking
  • Requires specialist L3 support
  • Hidden assumption surface area
  • Fails policy OTM-COMP-101 review
Tradeoff matrix
normalized — higher = better
Axis
OPT-A
Native OTM Itinerary Constraints
OPT-B
Rules Engine via Saved Condition Sets
OPT-C
Custom Planning Engine Extension
Implementation effort
65
42
8
Maintainability
88
64
32
Operational risk
78
52
22
Governance compliance
92
71
41
Pattern reuse
78
55
18
Runtime performance
81
67
88
Overall80 / 10059 / 10035 / 100
Architectural tradeoffs
  • OPT-A sacrifices ~12% peak performance for upgrade-safety and audit trail clarity.
  • OPT-B trades maintainability for analyst flexibility; expect drift between sandbox and prod after 6 months.
  • OPT-C accepts upgrade-blocking risk and L3 dependency for unconstrained business logic.
Governance posture
  • OPT-A
    92Compliant
  • OPT-B
    71Conditional
  • OPT-C
    41Non-compliant