Getting the Words Right

Summary: A standard SDLC can be useful as a shared reference, but real delivery paths vary because team structure, uncertainty, timing, constraints, and decision authority vary. Organizations often want a standard SDLC. The appeal is obvious: it creates a common language, a visible sequence, and a simpler way to coordinate. It gives people a legible model of how work should move. That model can be useful, but only up to a point. In practice, there is rarely one real SDLC. There are many real SDLCs, each shaped by the conditions of the work. Why Theoretical SDLCs Appeal A theoretical SDLC helps with:

•planning •governance •reporting •onboarding •cross-team coordination It gives the organization a stable container for talking about work. It says, in effect, “this is how work progresses here.” Why Real SDLCs Diverge The problem is that the underlying work does not vary along just one axis. It varies across multiple dimensions at once.

THEORETICAL SDLC VS. REAL SDLC(S)53 Some of the biggest ones are:

•coordination load: one team working alone is very different from many tightly coupled teams •time horizon: a few weeks is different from a multi-quarter or multiyear effort •value timing: some work creates value early, while other work pays off much later •uncertainty: sometimes the issue is execution, and sometimes the issue is whether the problem, approach, or outcome is even right •de-risking cadence: some efforts can learn and pivot early, while others only reveal risk late •constraints: some work has room to maneuver, while some sits inside tight limits •urgency and value profile: not all work deserves the same level of protection, escalation, or investment •decision authority and alignment: some work is team-owned, while other work depends on broader approval and convergence Once those dimensions shift, the shape of the work shifts with them. A Practical Contrast Question More theoretical SDLC viewMore real SDLC view What is the path?one common sequence multiple valid paths What changes the path? local variation around a standard the nature of the work itself How much discovery is needed? assumed stage in the flow varies by uncertainty, timing, and authority How much coordination is needed? often under-specified depends heavily on team topology and coupling When does risk come down? expected to reduce in a predictable sequence depends on what can actually be learned early What does progress mean? movement through stages reduction in risk, creation of value, and alignment around next steps

THEORETICAL SDLC VS. REAL SDLC(S)54 SDLC as Container This is where the earlier terms in the series help. A standard SDLC is often treated as if it were the real perdurant of delivery. But in practice, it is usually a container. It groups many different real perdurants:

•discovery loops •delivery loops •coordination work •decision cycles •validation and learning The container is useful because it creates a shared frame. But the real work unfolds differently depending on the system around it. What To Standardize This does not mean standards are useless. It means the organization has to be careful about what it standardizes. It is often better to standardize:

•a small number of shared milestones •explicit handoffs or interfaces •key decision points •common artifacts where consistency really matters •signals that help others understand risk and progress It is often worse to standardize:

•one rigid path for every kind of work •one fixed discovery model •one assumed coordination pattern •one definition of progress for every initiative The Core Insight Theoretical SDLCs improve legibility. Real SDLCs reflect métis. The mistake is not having a standard model. The mistake is treating that model as if it were sufficient. In knowledge work, the path depends on the work’s actual conditions, and those conditions change the shape of the process itself.

THEORETICAL SDLC VS. REAL SDLC(S)55

So the practical question is not, “What is our SDLC?” It is, “What kind

of work is this, and what kind of SDLC does it actually require?” Try This Now:

•Pick one recent piece of work and write down the official path it was supposed to follow.

• Then write down the actual path it took, including any loops, waiting, rework, or exceptions.

• Ask: which parts need standardization, and which parts vary because the work itself varies?