Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.
PRGDAI-SD 360+ Decision Architecture: Integrating Performance, Risk, Governance, Data, Artificial Intelligence, Sustainability, and Decision Execution
The PRGDAI-SD 360+ Decision Architecture is proposed as a universal, KPI-governed, evidence-based, and AI-ready meta-architecture for decision-making in complex governance environments. The model integrates seven dimensions of decision quality: Performance, Risk, Governance, Data, Artificial Intelligence, Sustainability, and Decision Execution. It addresses a recurring gap in contemporary organizations and institutions: many possess KPIs, dashboards, risk registers, and strategic plans, yet lack an integrated architecture that converts fragmented indicators, risks, data streams, and governance signals into auditable, data-driven, ethically bounded, and action-oriented decisions.
Methodologically, the model follows a design science research logic supported by systems thinking, KPI engineering, data governance, AI governance, maturity modelling, early-warning design, scenario analysis, and decision-execution protocols. Its purpose is not merely to measure performance, but to transform evidence into a structured decision chain: diagnosis, indicator design, data validation, scoring, risk sensing, governance review, decision execution, learning, and recalibration.
PRGDAI-SD 360+ consolidates the author’s prior KPI-governed, data-driven, and civilizational decision frameworks into a higher-order meta-architecture. These prior frameworks are treated as domain-specific modules rather than competing models. The architecture is designed for three application families: organizational and sectoral governance, including airline strategy, logistics, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO), tourism, and supply-chain resilience; digital and technological governance, including data governance, AI governance, cybersecurity, and digital transformation; and civilizational and theological governance, including Taqrīb, comparative Kalām, interreligious dialogue, Christian ecumenism, and civilizational studies.
The main contribution of PRGDAI-SD 360+ is the construction of a 360-degree decision architecture that integrates performance intelligence, risk intelligence, governance accountability, data trustworthiness, AI readiness, sustainability impact, and decision execution into one auditable model for evidence-based strategic governance. The model is intended for executives, policymakers, researchers, data leaders, AI strategists, governance boards, dialogue councils, and institutional decision-makers who require a structured method for converting complex evidence into responsible decisions and corrective action.
1. DAMA International. (2017). DAMA-DMBOK: Data management body of knowledge (2nd ed.). Technics Publications.
2. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI 1: Foundation 2021. Global Reporting Initiative.
3. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
4. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018: Risk management—Guidelines. ISO.
5. International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO/IEC 27001:2022: Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection—Information security management systems—Requirements. ISO.
6. International Organization for Standardization. (2023). ISO/IEC 42001:2023: Information technology—Artificial intelligence—Management system. ISO.
7. ISACA. (2018). COBIT 2019 framework: Governance and management objectives. ISACA.
8. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
9. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
10. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.
11. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. New Jersey Institute of Technology.
12. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
13. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025a). 7S-360 Strategic Indicator Architecture: A KPI-Governed Framework for Integrated Governance. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15665.24160
14. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025b). Integrated KPI Excellence Framework (IKEF-360+): A universal model for role-based airline performance management. Tarbiat Modares University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17285.46562
15. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025c). UCTA‑PA: Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture: A Performance Architecture for Measurable Rapprochement and Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16602.40647
16. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025d). Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture (UCTA): A KPI-Governed Goal Architecture for Islamic Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35438.27202
17. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025e). Taqrib Diagnostic–Decision Model (TDDM): A multi-dimensional framework for classifying, designing, and evaluating Islamic intra-faith rapprochement. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27306.68806
18. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025f). Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Faith Dialogue and Civilizational Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34234.30403
19. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025g). Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework (ITDF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Islamic Unity and Interfaith Readiness. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19952.11521
20. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025h). Global Kalam Strategic Framework (GKSF): A fourteen-pillar KPI-based comparative model for Islamic unity and theological convergence. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16774.28489/1
21. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025i). Twelve-pillar framework for comparative jurisprudence (TPF-CJ). University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26840.61441/1
22. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025j). Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework (IDDF): A KPI-Oriented Architecture for Abrahamic Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13026.85443
23. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025k). Ecumenical Christian KPI Framework (ECKF): A KPI-Based Strategic Architecture for Christian Unity and Institutional Dialogue. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31969.21609
24. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2026). Civilizational Algorithm Theory (CAT): A Design–Science Method for Sacred-Text Ontology Structuring and Theology-to-Governance Translation. University of Religions and Denominations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17244.86400
25. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., AlizadehMousavi, S. M., HosseinPoor, S. M. M., Bagheri, A., MoghadasNian, S. A. H., & Qasemi, E. (2025a). A KPI-governed Taqrīb architecture: A data-driven roadmap to the New Islamic Civilization (DDRNIC). 10th International & 11th National Conference on New Findings in Management, Psychology and Accounting. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5995838
26. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., Raeisi, Z., Karami, F., MoghadasNian, S. A. H., & MoghadasNian, A. S. (2025b). A KPI-Governed Architecture for Integrated Civilizational Renewal (ICRA): From Theological Convergence to Measurable Unity (MCPI). 10th International & 11th National Conference on New Findings in Management, Psychology and Accounting. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5990594
27. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). The NIST cybersecurity framework (CSF) 2.0. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.CSWP.29
28. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
29. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
30. Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
31. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.
