Glossary
The 3-in-3 SDLC Framework (3SF) introduces a shared language to describe the systemic relationships between Client, Vendor, and Product (or Service).
This glossary defines the core concepts and terminology used across 3SF Theory, Practice, and Contracts.
Core Model Terms
| Term |
Meaning |
| 3-in-3 System |
The foundational model aligning three parties — Client, Vendor, and Product (or Service) — through three relationships: Engagement, Delivery, and Value. |
| Engagement |
The relationship between Client and Vendor, focused on collaboration, alignment, and mutual understanding. |
| Delivery |
The relationship between Vendor and Product (or Service), focused on execution, quality, and predictability. |
| Value |
The relationship between Product (or Service) and Client, focused on realized outcomes and satisfaction. |
| Triangle Model |
Visual representation of the 3-in-3 System, showing the three entities and three connecting relationships. |
| 3SF Lifecycle |
A cyclical framework for discovering, shaping, delivering, and evolving engagements across the Client–Vendor–Product system. |
Structural Elements
| Term |
Meaning |
| Layer |
Logical grouping in 3SF Theory that defines the system structure and stability (e.g., Stable Rules Layer, Contextual Drivers Layer). |
| Stable Rules Layer (SRL) |
The foundation layer defining universal principles that preserve delivery system coherence. |
| Contextual Drivers Layer (CDL) |
Layer describing external and internal factors that shape engagement and delivery configuration. |
| Contract |
A defined agreement (formal or informal) establishing how roles or systems interact — includes governance, autonomy, and accountability models. |
| Canvas |
A visual facilitation tool (e.g., Engagement Context Canvas) used for discovery and alignment workshops. |
| Artifact |
A structured output or template (contract, matrix, dashboard, or record) representing decisions or agreements. |
System Concepts
| Term |
Meaning |
| Systemic Friction |
Persistent misalignment between system parts — information flow, accountability, or decision rights — that reduces delivery performance. |
| Systemic Learning |
Continuous improvement approach that transforms incidents and feedback into organizational growth. |
| Autonomy |
The degree of self-governance and decision-making freedom granted to a team or organization within agreed boundaries. |
| Control |
Mechanisms or boundaries that maintain coherence and prevent systemic drift while allowing autonomy. |
| Alignment |
Shared understanding of goals, direction, and responsibilities across Client and Vendor teams. |
| Coherence |
The ability of all elements in the delivery system to fit together without internal conflict or redundancy. |
| Accountability |
Shared ownership for outcomes, measured through jointly defined indicators and agreements. |
| Governance |
The structure of oversight, decision-making cadence, and escalation mechanisms within an engagement. |
Maturity and Metrics
| Term |
Meaning |
| Maturity Model |
A structured framework describing progressive stages of relationship and system development — from Reactive to Strategic. |
| Maturity Growth Contract (MGC) |
Agreement defining the roadmap and cadence for evolving engagement maturity. |
| Maturity Velocity (MV) |
The rate of improvement in maturity score across time, used to track relationship evolution. |
| Engagement Maturity Index (EMI) |
Metric summarizing average maturity across active engagements. |
| Delivery Maturity Index (DMI) |
Metric reflecting delivery predictability and flow efficiency. |
| Value Maturity Index (VMI) |
Metric showing the proportion of delivered outputs linked to measurable outcomes. |
| Term |
Meaning |
| Engagement Context Canvas (ECC) |
A diagnostic tool that captures environmental and organizational context before engagement kickoff. |
| Outcome-to-Accountability Map (OAM) |
A mapping that connects desired outcomes to accountable roles and measurable outputs. |
| Outcome-to-Accountability Agreement (OAA) |
Governance annex that formalizes how business results are tied to deliverables and ownership. |
| Autonomy & Control Boundary Agreement (ACBA) |
Defines decision-making rights, control mechanisms, and escalation paths between Client and Vendor. |
| Flow Constraint Identification (FCI) |
Joint diagnostic practice to detect and address bottlenecks in the delivery system. |
| Learning Before Blame Protocol (LBP) |
A principle for converting incidents into systemic learning opportunities rather than fault-finding exercises. |
| Quarterly Alignment Record (QAR) |
Periodic summary of alignment status, decisions, and follow-up actions across engagements. |
Relationship and Evolution Terms
| Term |
Meaning |
| Relationship Evolution Contract (REC) |
Agreement defining how the partnership renews, scales, or transitions based on maturity data. |
| Partnership Confidence Index (PCI) |
Sentiment-based indicator of trust and collaboration strength between Client and Vendor. |
| Systemic Risk Ratio (SRR) |
Indicator showing the proportion of projects trending toward higher systemic risk or maturity decline. |
| Governance Contract (GC) |
Defines governance cadence, escalation paths, and decision-making authorities. |
Flow and Operations
| Term |
Meaning |
| Flow |
The smooth progression of work items from initiation to completion with minimal delays or context switching. |
| Work in Progress (WIP) |
A control mechanism that limits concurrent work to maintain flow and predictability. |
| Value Stream Map (VSM) |
A visualization tool mapping the end-to-end delivery process to identify bottlenecks and inefficiencies. |
| Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) |
Average duration between the occurrence of an incident and its detection. |
| Mean Time to Recover (MTTR) |
Average duration required to restore service after an incident. |
| Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) |
Average operational duration between two production incidents, used to track reliability. |
Reference Purpose
This glossary ensures terminological consistency across all layers of the 3SF Framework and supports:
- Alignment of understanding between Client and Vendor roles.
- Easier onboarding of new practitioners.
- Integration of 3SF concepts into organizational playbooks, training, and tooling.