3SF Practice Architecture¶
“Theory guides understanding. Practice enables transformation.”
3SF practices are built upon the systemic foundation defined by the Human Cooperation System (HCS) — the theoretical model that explains how cooperation functions across all forms of work.
While HCS describes why cooperation succeeds or fails, 3SF translates these dynamics into practical governance tools and engagement rituals that sustain alignment, trust, and measurable delivery value.
Purpose¶
The 3SF Practice Architecture explains how to apply the 3-in-3 SDLC Framework (3SF) in real projects — for both Client and Vendor organizations.
All practices in this section operationalize the Three Contracts defined in the 3SF Compact Core – The 3×3 System:
Grounding, Trust, and Value.
These contracts translate the framework’s principles — Context before Method, Trust before Control, and Outcome before Output — into tangible, co-signed artifacts that govern every engagement.
While the theory defines why 3SF exists and what it represents, the practice defines how to use it — when, by whom, and for what purpose.
3SF practices are designed to:
- Help clients mature as commissioning and ownership partners.
- Help vendors mature as delivery and advisory partners.
- Create a shared language between both sides across the full SDLC lifecycle.
Objectives¶
- Provide a map of 3SF usage across delivery stages and relationship lines.
- Distinguish client-side and vendor-side applications of each tool.
- Define modes of application (Design, Diagnose, Assess, Reflect, Audit, Measure).
- Act as a navigator for all practice tools and related training modules.
Structure of the Practice Part¶
Each practice is a standalone tool (one file per tool) using a unified template.
Tools are grouped by application mode and mapped to Client / Vendor contexts.
| Mode | Primary Focus | Typical User | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design | Establish delivery & engagement model | Vendor Delivery Facilitator / Client Product Leader | Initial Delivery System Design |
| Diagnose | Reveal constraints and gaps | Vendor Solution Architect / Client Product Leader | Delivery System Diagnostic |
| Assess | Measure project & relationship maturity | Delivery Facilitator / Account Lead / Executive Sponsor | Quarterly Delivery and Relationship Assessment |
| Reflect | Enable self-awareness and growth | Delivery Facilitator, Technical Integrator, Solution Architect, Product Leader | Self-Diagnostic and Reflection Tool |
| Audit & Aggregate | Compare and improve across portfolio | Engineering Director / Governance Officer | Relationship Audit and Portfolio Maturity Review |
| Measure | Consolidate maturity metrics and visualize systemic health | Governance Officer, Account Lead, Engineering Director | Maturity Dashboard |
Application Modes¶
| Mode | Typical When | Used by (Client / Vendor) | 3SF Layers Focused | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | RFP → Kick-off | Delivery Facilitator / Product Leader | CDL + SRL | Intent and collaboration system established |
| Diagnose | Discovery / Early Delivery | Solution Architect / Product Leader | CDL + SRL | Constraints and dependencies identified |
| Assess | Quarterly / Milestone | Delivery Facilitator / Account Lead / Executive Sponsor | SRL + RAC | Delivery and relationship health tracked |
| Reflect | Anytime | Delivery Facilitator, Technical Integrator, Product Leader | RAC | Individual or team awareness improved |
| Audit | Periodic / Portfolio | Engineering Director / Governance Officer | CDL + SRL + RAC | Portfolio-level maturity comparison |
| Measure | Continuous / Portfolio Governance | Governance Officer / Account Lead / Engineering Director | SRL + RAC | Relationship and maturity data visualized for decision-making |
Dual-Perspective Application¶
Each 3SF tool distinguishes Client View and Vendor View.
| Perspective | Purpose | Typical Roles | Example Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Client | Ensure vendor alignment, internal dependencies, and ownership clarity. | Product Leader, Executive Sponsor, Vendor Manager | Use 3SF tools to verify engagement readiness and integration. |
| Vendor | Design, execute, and evolve delivery systems that build partnership trust. | Delivery Facilitator, Solution Architect, Product Leader | Use 3SF tools to structure engagements and measure maturity. |
| Shared (Client + Vendor) | Strengthen collaboration, feedback, and transparency. | Combined teams across both sides | Apply tools jointly to synchronize relationship evolution. |
Each practice file includes:
Client-Side Application and Vendor-Side Application — highlighting respective actions and insights. For detailed role definitions, see Role Responsibility Snapshot.
Lifecycle Navigation¶
| When | Mode | Tool | Client Role(s) | Vendor Role(s) | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Engagement / RFP | Design | Engagement Context Canvas | Executive Sponsor, Product Leader | Delivery Facilitator, Account Lead | Shared context and maturity baseline |
| Setup / Governance | Design | Autonomy & Control Boundary Charter | Executive Sponsor, Governance Officer | Delivery Facilitator, Solution Architect | Decision rights and control boundaries defined |
| Portfolio / Metrics | Measure | Maturity Dashboard | Executive Sponsor, Governance Officer | Account Lead, Engineering Director | Transparent maturity metrics |
| Discovery / Early Build | Diagnose | Delivery System Diagnostic | Product Leader, Requirements Analyst | Solution Architect, Delivery Facilitator | Validated context and delivery readiness |
| Ongoing Delivery (MVP → v1) | Assess | Quarterly Assessment | Product Leader, Executive Sponsor | Delivery Facilitator, Account Lead | Relationship and flow monitored |
| Continuous Delivery | Reflect | Self-Diagnostic Tool | Product Leader, Governance Officer | Delivery Facilitator, Technical Integrator | Personal or team growth insight |
| Portfolio Audit | Audit | Relationship Audit | Executive Sponsor, Governance Officer | Delivery Facilitator, Engineering Director | Portfolio maturity compared |
| Retrospective / Evolve | Reflect | Learning Before Blame Protocol | Executive Sponsor, Product Leader | Delivery Facilitator, Account Lead | Root causes turned into learning |
Note: For governance interfaces and inspection instruments, see also
Contracts Architecture,
Maturity Dashboard, and
RAC / CRC.
3SF Layer Mapping¶
| 3SF Layer | Purpose | Client-Side Focus | Vendor-Side Focus | Example Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contextual Drivers Layer (CDL) | Clarify environment, goals, and constraints | Business objectives & internal readiness | Engagement framing & feasibility | Engagement Context Canvas |
| Stable Rules Layer (SRL) | Define repeatable collaboration patterns | Governance & dependencies | Team operations & flow | Autonomy & Control Boundary Charter |
| Rule Audit Checklist (RAC) | Reflect and verify maturity | Value realization & partnership signals | Relationship metrics & feedback | Maturity Dashboard / Relationship Audit |
Governance & Diagnostics layer:
This layer connects Practice and Theory through systemic inspection and adaptation.
It combines contractual artifacts (see below), the Maturity Dashboard, and diagnostics such as
RAC and CRC.
Together, they enable transparent governance and maturity measurement across Client and Vendor systems.
Core Practice Tools – Alignment before Performance¶
3SF prioritizes alignment before performance.
To ensure that alignment is measurable, the tools below convert 3SF Principles into inspectable artifacts, enforcing joint ownership across the Client ↔ Vendor boundary.
The 3SF Practice set follows the systemic order:
Context → Outcome → Trust → Quality → Flow → Accountability → Design → Diagnostics → Assessment → Reflection → Audit → Measurement → Learning.The first three tools — Engagement Context Canvas, Autonomy & Control Boundary Charter, and Maturity Dashboard — form the Essential Governance Tools.
These are the non-negotiable Contractual Artifacts that must be completed and co-signed before any SDLC Core Practices or delivery methodologies (Agile, Lean, etc.) are applied.
They ensure that every engagement operates within a validated relational contract — the foundation of 3SF as a Meta-Framework connecting governance and execution.
Tools to Expand Core SDLC Practices¶
| Core SDLC Practice | Tool / Artifact (Mode) | Purpose in 3SF System |
|---|---|---|
| Product Thinking | Outcome-to-Accountability Map (Design) | Enforces “Outcome before Output.” Links business metrics to accountable Client Product Owner and responsible Vendor Product Manager per SDLC stage. |
| Architecture & Design | Architectural Trade-Off Contract (Design / Diagnose) | Formalizes joint design trade-offs and requires sign-off from both Client and Vendor Solution Architects. Supports Shared Accountability. |
| Engineering & Quality | Shared Definition of Done (DoD) Matrix (Design) | Defines quality criteria across Code, Operational Readiness, and User Acceptance. |
| DevOps & Delivery | Flow Constraint Identification (Diagnose) | Maps flow constraints jointly by Vendor Delivery Lead and Client Project Manager. |
| Governance & Risk | Autonomy & Control Boundary Charter (Design) | Defines decision rights and escalation paths per maturity stage (Trust before Control). |
| Feedback & Learning | Learning Before Blame Protocol (Reflect) | Links issues to violated principles or Stable Rules. Promotes Learning before Blame. |
Tool for the Contextual Drivers Layer (CDL)¶
| Framework Layer | Tool / Artifact (Mode) | Purpose in 3SF System |
|---|---|---|
| Contextual Drivers Layer | Engagement Context Canvas (Design / Audit) | Used at the outset of Discover stage to define Contextual Drivers and corresponding Stable Rule Adjustments. |
Governance & Diagnostics layer – Contractual Artifacts¶
While Core Practices operationalize 3SF principles within teams, Contractual Artifacts define how those principles are enforced across organizational boundaries.
They form the interface layer between Client and Vendor, translating Trust before Control, Outcome before Output, and Shared Accountability into measurable, co-signed commitments.
| 3SF Principle | Contractual Artifact | Core SDLC Practice | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust before Control | Autonomy & Control Boundary Charter | Governance & Risk | Defines decision rights and escalation boundaries. |
| Outcome before Output | Outcome-to-Accountability Map | Product Thinking | Links outcomes to measurable business value jointly owned by Client and Vendor. |
| Shared Accountability | Architectural Trade-Off Contract | Architecture & Design | Captures trade-offs with explicit dual sign-off. |
Each artifact is:
- Bilateral — co-created and co-signed by matching functional pairs.
- Inspectable — verified during maturity assessments and relationship audits.
- Evolving — updated as trust and autonomy mature over time.
Together, these artifacts make 3SF the Meta-Framework of Co-Governance, bridging strategic intent and operational practice between Client and Vendor.
Systemic View of 3SF Contractual Artifacts¶
+-----------------------------+
| PRODUCT / SERVICE |
+-------------+---------------+
^
|
|
+------------------+------------------+
| CLIENT ↔ VENDOR RELATIONSHIP |
| (Engagement, Delivery, Value) |
+------------------+------------------+
^
|
+---------------------------------------------------+
| CONTRACTUAL ARTIFACTS – SYSTEMIC ALIGNMENT LAYER |
| (OAM • ATC • ACBC) |
+---------------------------------------------------+
^
|
+---------------------------------------------------+
| 3SF PRACTICES – DESIGN → MEASURE MODES |
| (Delivery System Design • Diagnostic • Assessment |
| • Reflection • Audit • Dashboard) |
+---------------------------------------------------+
^
|
+---------------------------------------------------+
| 3SF THEORY – PRINCIPLES & LAYERS |
| (CDL • SRL • RAC • Core Relationships) |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Interpretation:
The Contractual Artifacts act as the governance bridge between 3SF Theory and 3SF Practices.
They enforce alignment across the Client ↔ Vendor ↔ Product triangle by turning abstract principles into concrete agreements.
Without them, collaboration relies on interpretation; with them, collaboration becomes measurable.
Practice Template¶
| Section | Description |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Why the tool exists and what maturity gap it closes |
| Applies To | SDLC stage, relationship line, and maturity level |
| Actors / Roles | Client + Vendor roles involved (see Role Responsibility Snapshot) |
| Steps / Routines | How to apply it collaboratively |
| Inputs / Outputs | Artifacts or agreements produced |
| Metrics / Signals | Quantitative and qualitative indicators |
| Common Pitfalls | Typical misuses or blind spots |
| Scaling Notes | How to evolve use with maturity |
| Client-Side Application | Specific guidance for client users |
| Vendor-Side Application | Specific guidance for vendor users |
Using Practice Architecture in Training¶
This file serves as the starting point in all training paths:
- Identify your side (Client or Vendor).
- Determine your current stage (RFP, Discovery, Delivery, Post-v1).
- Choose the application mode (Design, Diagnose, Assess, Reflect, Audit).
- Open the corresponding tool file.
- Apply it collaboratively using shared terminology and maturity targets.
Training programs and certifications use these mappings to define 3SF Practitioner Paths — separate for Client and Vendor, but sharing the same conceptual backbone.
Summary¶
3SF Practice Architecture bridges the 3SF Theory and the Practical Toolset, creating a shared map for both Client and Vendor teams to:
- Understand when and why to use each tool.
- Distinguish respective responsibilities and contributions.
- Build maturity in a synchronized and measurable way.