Branching logic directs workflow execution down different paths based on conditions and data values. It evaluates input against rules to determine which path to follow next. For businesses, this enables workflows that handle different scenarios automatically without human intervention. Without branching logic, every case follows the same path regardless of context.
Every request goes through the same workflow, regardless of priority or complexity.
A simple inquiry gets the same 12-step process as a critical escalation.
Your team built separate workflows for each scenario. Now you maintain fifteen of them.
Intelligent workflows make decisions. They do not force everything down the same path.
ORCHESTRATION & CONTROL LAYER - Where workflows learn to choose the right path.
The fork in the road that makes workflows intelligent
Branching logic evaluates conditions at decision points in your workflow and routes execution down different paths based on the result. A high-priority ticket goes to the senior team. A low-value order skips manual review. An approval request routes to different managers based on amount.
Without branching logic, you either build separate workflows for each scenario or force everything through the same process. Neither scales. Branching logic lets one workflow handle many scenarios by making decisions at runtime based on actual data.
The goal is not complexity. It is precision. Each case gets exactly the process it needs, no more, no less. The workflow adapts to the work, not the other way around.
Branching logic embodies a universal pattern: when different situations require different responses, create a decision point that routes each case appropriately. The same pattern appears anywhere one process must handle multiple scenarios.
Input arrives at a decision point. Conditions are evaluated against the input. Based on the evaluation, execution continues down the appropriate path. Each path handles its scenario optimally.
Select a ticket type and watch how branching logic routes it to the appropriate path. Each input gets handled by the right team in the right timeframe.
Notice the pattern: Same workflow entry point, but different paths based on conditions. VIP issues skip the queue entirely. Simple questions never burden your team. Everyone gets the right level of attention without manual sorting.
Three patterns for making workflow decisions
Yes or no, true or false
The simplest form: evaluate one condition and go left or right. "Is this a VIP customer?" Yes routes to white-glove service, no continues to standard processing. Clean, fast, easy to understand and maintain.
Multiple paths from one decision point
Evaluate a value against multiple conditions at once. "What is the priority level?" Routes to different queues for Critical, High, Medium, or Low. One decision point, many possible destinations.
Decisions that lead to more decisions
Chain decision points together. First branch on customer type, then on request category, then on value. Each branch narrows the path until the exact right process is selected.
Answer a few questions to get a recommendation tailored to your situation.
How many different paths do you need?
A support ticket arrives. The workflow evaluates priority level and customer tier to determine the right path: critical issues from VIP customers go to the senior team immediately, standard issues go to the regular queue, and simple questions route to self-service resources.
Hover over any component to see what it does and why it's neededTap any component to see what it does and why it's needed
Animated lines show direct connections · Hover for detailsTap for details · Click to learn more
This component works the same way across every business. Explore how it applies to different situations.
Notice how the core pattern remains consistent while the specific details change
You create branches for Priority 1, 2, and 3. A request comes in marked Priority 4. The workflow has nowhere to send it. It either fails silently or throws an error that confuses everyone.
Instead: Always include a default or fallback branch. Every input should have somewhere to go, even if it is just "route to manual review."
The branch condition becomes "if customer_tier is Gold AND order_value > 500 AND region is not EMEA AND product_category in [A, B, C]." Nobody can understand or maintain it.
Instead: Move complex logic upstream. Use a rules engine to evaluate conditions and output a simple routing variable. Branch on that variable.
You create separate paths that never rejoin. Now you have three nearly identical sequences of steps that all need updating when the process changes.
Instead: Design branches to converge after the differentiated steps. Share common logic instead of duplicating it.
Branching logic is a workflow pattern that evaluates conditions to determine which path execution should follow. When a condition is true, the workflow takes one path. When false, it takes another. This allows a single workflow to handle multiple scenarios, routing each case to the appropriate sequence of steps based on its specific characteristics.
Rules engines evaluate many conditions against a single input to produce outputs or actions. Branching logic decides which path a workflow should take next. Think of rules engines as answering "what should happen" while branching logic answers "where should this go next." They often work together, with rules engines informing branching decisions.
Use branching logic when different inputs require different processing paths. Common examples include routing support tickets by priority, processing orders differently based on value, or handling approvals based on amount thresholds. If you find yourself building separate workflows for similar scenarios, branching logic can unify them into one intelligent flow.
The most common mistake is creating too many branches, making workflows hard to maintain. Another is not handling edge cases, where inputs fall through without matching any condition. Also problematic is putting complex logic in branch conditions instead of using rules engines or upstream components to simplify decisions.
Test each branch path independently with inputs designed to trigger that specific path. Create test cases for edge conditions and inputs that might fall between branches. Log which branch was taken for each execution so you can verify routing decisions match expectations. Use coverage tracking to ensure all branches are exercised.
Yes, branching logic can evaluate multiple conditions using AND/OR combinations. You can also chain branches sequentially, where the result of one branch leads to another decision point. For complex multi-condition scenarios, consider using a rules engine upstream to simplify the branching decision to a single routing variable.
Have a different question? Let's talk
Choose the path that matches your current situation
Your workflows have no decision points yet
You have some branches but they are getting complex
Branching works but maintenance is becoming painful
You have learned how to route workflows based on conditions. The natural next step is understanding how to route work to different teams, systems, or specialized handlers.