Skip to content

Commitment Formalization for Software Delivery

This page extends CDS Commitment Formalization for commitments executed through software delivery.

In software delivery, commitments fail when they are formal on paper but not runtime-ready: access and dependencies block work, constraints arrive late, “done” is confused with value, and change becomes escalation. This profile adds the minimum formalization structure needed to hand off a commitment into a delivery runtime (e.g., 3SF) with clarity and governance.

Purpose (software delivery focus)

Software-delivery Commitment Formalization exists to:

  • Produce a runtime-ready Commitment Envelope for delivery.
  • Formalize governance, decision forums, and change protocol suited to delivery reality.
  • Formalize acceptance evidence (value proof) distinct from deliverables.
  • Bind dependency obligations (especially client-side access/approvals) into the commitment.
  • Define operational posture (who runs it, what “safe” means, release/cutover stance).
  • Prevent execution from re-discovering meaning and re-negotiating intent mid-flight.

Boundaries

Software-delivery Commitment Formalization is complete when:

  • The commitment envelope maps cleanly into 3SF coherence targets:
    • Client/Vendor/Product owners exist
    • Engagement/Delivery/Value contracts exist
  • “Done” and “valuable” are not conflated; acceptance evidence is explicit.
  • Dependencies (access, environments, indirect teams) are explicit, owned, and time-aware.
  • Change protocol is routable without escalation-by-default.
  • Operational ownership and risk posture are explicit.

It is not complete when:

  • governance is “we’ll meet weekly” with no decision mechanism
  • acceptance is “we delivered X”
  • dependencies remain implied (“client will provide access”)
  • security/compliance constraints are acknowledged but not operationalized

Additions to the Commitment Envelope (software profile)

Use the standard Commitment Envelope fields, and add the following software-delivery fields.

Runtime mapping fields (3SF-ready)

Make the triangle and lines explicit:

  • Client owner(s): sponsor + acceptance owner + policy gate owners
  • Vendor owner(s): accountable delivery owner + escalation path
  • Product owner(s): domain/product authority + operational authority

And the three line contracts:

  • Engagement contract: governance forum, cadence, decision recording, escalation
  • Delivery contract: quality bar, dependency readiness, technical decision rights
  • Value contract: success signals, evidence cadence, acceptance method, adoption ownership

Acceptance evidence (value contract)

Formalize acceptance as evidence:

  • what evidence proves progress/value (signals + qualitative proof)
  • cadence of evidence review
  • who accepts and how acceptance is recorded
  • what happens when evidence is inconclusive

This prevents “acceptance by shipment.”

Dependency obligations (explicit commitments)

Bring dependencies into the envelope:

  • access provisioning obligations (roles, lead times, owners)
  • environment readiness obligations (test data, parity, release windows)
  • internal dependency team obligations (what they must deliver, by when)
  • procurement/legal obligations (if relevant)
  • SME availability commitments (hours/cadence)

For each obligation, define:

  • owner
  • expected lead time
  • “definition of ready”
  • escalation path

This prevents delivery stalling in hidden queues.

Operational posture and ownership

Define the operational reality of the result:

  • who runs it post-change (team/function)
  • SLO/SLA expectations (if applicable)
  • monitoring/alerting/runbook expectations (minimal)
  • support model (handoff, on-call, incident ownership)
  • release/cutover stance (where relevant: canary, phased rollout, maintenance windows)

This prevents “deliver and disappear.”

Technical tradeoff authority

Formalize who can approve:

  • accepting technical debt and under what limits
  • performance/security tradeoffs
  • scope reductions due to constraints
  • architecture changes that impact reversibility
  • release/cutover go/no-go decisions

This prevents slow motion decision paralysis.

Process (software-delivery emphasis)

Run the core Commitment Formalization process, with these additional substages.

Step: Build the runtime contract explicitly

Before “signing,” confirm:

  • triangle owners (Client/Vendor/Product)
  • line contracts (Engagement/Delivery/Value)
  • mapping completeness (nothing critical is implicit)

Step: Convert intent into acceptance evidence

Ask:

  • “What evidence will we review to confirm value?”
  • “How frequently will we review it?”
  • “Who can accept, reject, or request change based on evidence?”

Step: Bind dependency obligations

Ask:

  • “What must the client/platform teams provide, by when?”
  • “What is the lead time and what is ‘ready’?”
  • “What happens if this obligation is not met?”

Step: Decide operational posture

Ask:

  • “Who owns operations after release?”
  • “What makes this safe to run?”
  • “What is our release/cutover posture?”

Step: Formalize change protocol for delivery reality

Ask:

  • “What changes are routine vs escalated?”
  • “Who decides within 24–48 hours when reality shifts?”
  • “How will scope/constraints be renegotiated without conflict?”

Software profile quality checks (Commitment)

Must

  • Triangle owners are named (Client/Vendor/Product) with accountability and decision rights.
  • Engagement/Delivery/Value contracts exist (at least minimally).
  • Acceptance evidence is defined and not equivalent to shipping.
  • Key dependencies include owner + lead time + definition of ready + escalation.
  • Change protocol is routable and includes decision forum + decision recording.
  • Operational ownership is explicit (who runs/supports the result).

Should

  • Release/cutover posture is stated when production risk exists.
  • Constraint validation ownership is explicit (security/compliance/architecture).
  • Technical tradeoff authority is explicit for likely tradeoffs.

Smells

  • “Client will provide access” with no owner, lead time, or definition of ready.
  • “We’ll align with security later.”
  • Governance exists as meetings, but decisions and changes are unmanaged.
  • Delivery starts while acceptance evidence is still vague.
  • Operational ownership is assumed (“ops will handle it”) with no agreement.

Common software-delivery failure patterns

  • Runtime gap: formal commitment exists, but delivery cannot execute due to missing owners/decision rights.
  • Dependency stall: execution blocked by access, environments, indirect teams.
  • Acceptance theater: demos replace evidence; value is never validated.
  • Change escalation: every change becomes a conflict or leadership escalation.
  • Operational surprise: production readiness and support obligations appear late.

Transition to 3SF runtime

The software-delivery Commitment Envelope is now 3SF-ready:

  • It defines triangle ownership (Client/Vendor/Product).
  • It defines line contracts (Engagement/Delivery/Value).
  • It makes acceptance evidence, dependencies, and change protocol explicit.

From this point, 3SF operates as the runtime system that executes the commitment, detects drift, and governs adaptation without losing coherence.