Skip to content

Meaning Discovery for Software Delivery

This page extends CDS Meaning Discovery for commitments executed through software delivery.

Software delivery introduces predictable “meaning traps”: constraints appear late, dependencies are indirect, and stakeholders assume shared understanding while using different language. This profile ensures Meaning Discovery captures the additional reality needed to refine intent and formalize a commitment that is actually executable.

Purpose (software delivery focus)

In software delivery, Meaning Discovery must capture not only why change is needed, but also the delivery reality that will shape or block execution.

This profile extension exists to:

  • Reveal delivery constraints early (access, environments, security/compliance gates).
  • Identify dependency systems (other teams, workflows, approvals, vendors).
  • Capture domain semantics (shared language and meaning boundaries).
  • Ground the situation in signals from product and operations (not only narratives).
  • Make operational stakes explicit (who will run/support the result).

Boundaries

Software-delivery Meaning Discovery is complete when the group can say:

  • “We understand the situation and needs and the delivery conditions that shape feasibility.”
  • “We know where approvals, access, or internal dependencies can block us.”
  • “We have identified the key domain terms and where language diverges.”
  • “We can reference operational/product signals supporting the framing.”

It is not complete when:

  • constraints are deferred (“security will check later”)
  • stakeholders closest to operations/support are absent
  • dependencies are treated as “someone else will handle it”
  • “modernization/migration” is used as the problem statement

Additions to the Meaning Handshake (software profile)

Use the standard Meaning Handshake fields, and add the following software-delivery fields.

Delivery conditions

Capture conditions that impact software execution:

  • Access reality (accounts, RBAC, approvals, lead times)
  • Environment reality (dev/test/prod availability, parity, release windows)
  • Data reality (sources, quality, governance, residency, privacy constraints)
  • Security/compliance gates (reviews, policies, evidence requirements)
  • Operational reality (monitoring, incident response, on-call constraints)

Dependency landscape

Explicitly name indirect dependencies:

  • internal platform teams (IAM, network, security, SRE, data)
  • ticketing/approval workflows (e.g., ServiceNow-style queues)
  • external vendors and tool owners
  • release management / CAB processes
  • procurement/legal constraints (if applicable)

For each dependency, capture:

  • owner/team
  • expected lead time
  • success condition (what “done” means)
  • what blocks them from acting

Domain language (semantic alignment)

Capture the minimal domain vocabulary needed to avoid drift:

  • key terms (customer, account, order, incident, “done”, “active”, etc.)
  • conflicting definitions
  • terms that are overloaded or politically charged
  • where the system language disagrees with business language

This is not DDD design yet. It’s meaning alignment so intent refinement doesn’t hardcode the wrong semantics.

Operational stakes

Make explicit who will live with the result:

  • who operates the system after change
  • who supports incidents
  • who owns SLOs/SLAs (if any)
  • what failure looks like operationally (risk posture in meaning terms)

Evidence sources (software signals)

Anchor meaning in signals such as:

  • incident reports, postmortems
  • support ticket categories and volumes
  • latency/error trends
  • deployment frequency / lead time / change failure rates (where available)
  • usage/adoption funnel signals
  • cost signals (cloud spend, license cost, operational load)

You do not need perfect metrics. You need at least some signal beyond opinion.

Process (software-delivery emphasis)

Run the core Meaning Discovery process, with these additional prompts.

Step: Expose delivery constraints early

Ask:

  • “What approvals or gates can stop us?”
  • “What access will we need and how long does it take?”
  • “Which environment limitations shape what’s possible?”

Step: Make dependency queues visible

Ask:

  • “Which teams must act for us to progress?”
  • “What is their incentive and priority relative to ours?”
  • “What’s the typical lead time and failure mode?”

Step: Align domain language before intent refinement

Ask:

  • “Which terms do we use that might not mean the same thing to others?”
  • “Which term disagreements caused past rework?”
  • “Where does the current system’s language disagree with business meaning?”

Step: Include operations/support meaning

Ask:

  • “Who gets paged when it fails?”
  • “What risks are unacceptable operationally?”
  • “What would make support load worse?”

Software profile quality checks (Meaning)

Must

  • Delivery conditions include at least access + security/compliance + environments (even at a high level).
  • At least one dependency system is identified, with an owner and expected lead time.
  • At least one operational stakeholder perspective is represented or captured.
  • At least one software signal supports the framing.

Should

  • Key domain terms are captured with at least one known ambiguity.
  • Top operational risks are stated in meaning terms (what must be protected).

Smells

  • “We’ll get access later.”
  • “Security will review when we’re done.”
  • Dependencies are invisible until execution stalls.
  • Domain terms are used confidently but mean different things across groups.
  • Operations/support is absent from the conversation.

Common software-delivery failure patterns

  • Constraint ambush: security/privacy/data restrictions discovered late.
  • Dependency paralysis: work stalls in ticket queues or indirect teams.
  • Semantic drift: teams build the “right thing” with the wrong meaning.
  • Invisible operability: support and reliability needs surface only after release.
  • Meaning collapse into solution: “modernize/migrate” replaces the actual need.

Transition to Intent Refinement (software profile)

The extended Meaning Handshake becomes input to software-delivery Intent Refinement, where intent must explicitly include:

  • quality attributes (NFRs)
  • feasibility probes (spikes/validations)
  • dependency obligations
  • evidence expectations and instrumentation needs