The Legacy Cabinet Company had a spreadsheet that did a perfectly respectable thing: it produced price quotes. Then the quotes entered SAP Business One, and accounting had to correct them. Product codes were wrong. Prices were almost right, which is a particularly expensive variety of wrong. According to Decisions’ case study, the cleanup consumed about 40 hours a week. A tool meant to save work had quietly acquired a second job: manufacturing it.
- Visual rules decide what happens; workflows carry it out.
- Customers use Decisions for accounting, approvals, quoting and other operational chores.
- The ProcessMaker merger adds a broader process portfolio to its rules-first AI ambitions.
That is a useful place to begin with Decisions. Enterprise software often sells the next grand transformation. Here, the revealing problem is a cabinet quote. The spreadsheet worked at one location, but version management, inaccurate data and limited visibility made wider adoption impractical. The business needed control over the logic that connected a customer’s request to an order.
The spreadsheet’s second job
Decisions builds software for that connection. Its platform combines a business rules engine with workflows, forms, integrations and tools for testing and tracing changes. A rule evaluates information and returns an outcome: approve, reject, calculate, escalate. A workflow moves the work through the steps that follow. Keeping both together lets a policy change reach the process that applies it.
Illustrative flow, not a customer implementation.
The appeal is the shared visual canvas. A business specialist can inspect decision tables and routing; IT can retain deployment controls and integration standards. Decisions occupies the overlapping markets for low-code development, decision management and process automation. Buyers also consider Appian, Pega, Camunda and InRule. Decisions’ particular emphasis is reusable business logic inside the same environment as the work it governs.
That emphasis has a history. Decisions dates to 2010, with Carl Hewitt, Heath Oderman and Kevin Lindquist listed as founders. Oderman remains CTO. His biography calls him a “workflow and rule nerd.” It is an admirably specific professional identity. This is a company whose central subject has become more fashionable without becoming less technical.
Its customers include large, complex, heavily regulated institutions and software businesses that need to connect existing applications. Financial teams can route approvals; healthcare teams can coordinate information; insurers can update rating logic. The product supplies building tools, rather than one finished application for every industry. Developers still have a role: Decisions’ verified GitHub organization publishes C# SDK examples, JavaScript controls and a React interface example. The visual designer is therefore a starting point that technical teams can extend.
Five weeks, then the real work
Consider KnowLedger, a middleware service that moves investment information into general ledgers. Its customers’ accountants faced the familiar routine of moving data between systems, reconciling entries and preparing reports. KnowLedger used Decisions to build the processing layer. The case study reports first workflows running in five weeks, a 60% reduction in manual effort and three times the expected data volume.
KnowLedger’s first workflows
Reported reduction in manual effort
The implementation detail matters more than the percentages. KnowLedger worked with Decisions’ professional services team on its first workflows and tests. The machinery was visual; the work still involved learning, designing and checking. No-code does not abolish the need to know what should happen.
Remprex, which operates and supports intermodal terminals, supplies another example. Its old architecture made small changes costly. Large platforms looked expensive to maintain; standalone rules engines lacked the broader workflow and front-end capabilities it wanted. Decisions packaged those pieces together. After a four-day training event and implementation support, Remprex reported automating 80% of transactions and doubling processing speed.
“They are partners with us every step of the way.”
Ryan Kerry / CEO, KnowLedger
Look before you automate
Sometimes the first problem is discovering the process itself. A European telecom provider in the combined company’s case library tried interviews, time registrations and workshops. The investigation lacked sufficient detail and became too costly to scale. It was suspended. A four-week analysis using ProcessMaker Process Intelligence then exposed missing data connections and communication happening outside the central customer system.
This changes the diagnosis. If employees keep transferring information that already exists elsewhere, faster typing is a modest ambition. The more useful intervention is repairing the handoff. Process intelligence gives Decisions a way to examine work before automating it. Its American Financial Network case identifies underused applications and potential savings; those opportunities should be read as possibilities, rather than money already banked.
Delivery also helps explain the company’s partner network. Decisions lists more than 40 globally active partners, including implementation consultancies. Its stated values include collective success, urgency, discipline and ownership. Those declarations become meaningful in the unglamorous part of the job: agreeing on a requirement, helping a customer learn the platform, and staying accountable when a workflow reaches production. The case studies repeatedly feature assistance alongside the software.
The new employee is an AI agent
Decisions announced its merger with ProcessMaker on November 10, 2025. On June 9, 2026, CEO Giles Whiting announced the unified Decisions brand. The combination brings ProcessMaker’s workflow experience together with Decisions’ rule-engine heritage. Existing customer environments remain supported, according to the announcement. The expanded company reports 700 business customers, with a customer overview describing operations across 60 countries.
The strategic bet is AI orchestration. An agent might interpret unstructured information; rules can determine whether the resulting action is permitted or needs human review. Decisions offers visual agent and workflow design, escalation paths, versioning and action histories. Its proposition is that adaptable models need explicit policies around them. A fluent answer, after all, is an awkward substitute for an approval trail.
Buy the change, budget the work
The commercial model is enterprise licensing, with Foundation, Growth and Enterprise tiers quoted by scope, capabilities and deployment. The current pricing page rejects restrictive per-user pricing and offers cloud, hybrid and on-premise options. Buyers still need to budget implementation effort. One anonymous bank’s case study reports 1,000 hours of development, testing and implementation against a 2,500-hour custom-development estimate. That measures effort, not the license bill.
My reading of these cases suggests a practical approach: choose one costly handoff, appoint an owner who understands both the business and its systems, define the exceptions, and test before expanding. Unreliable input data or disputed policy will undermine the exercise. For a trivial, stable task, an enterprise platform may be more machinery than necessary. Decisions becomes interesting when the rule changes often, the handoff matters, and somebody must explain the result.