Frameworks, Methods and Practices

What is the difference? Is there a difference?

 

These terms are often used interchangeably and not just in casual conversation but also as part of strategic and tactical decision-making models.   This is reflective of a misunderstanding of each and their interrelationships.   In the most direct sense, Frameworks, Methods and Practices define a hierarchical “delivery” stack where each layer increases the granularity of the treating and human agency involved.

​

• Frameworks provide Alignment and Governance

• Methods are Prescribed, Logical and Consistent

• Practices display Performance and Artistry

​

Frameworks define and convey a high-level structure providing direction and boundaries without being overly prescriptive.  It defines the “what” and “where”, serving as a guide to ensure all efforts align with organizational goals.   

​

Methods support the Framework’s intent by providing a structured, step-by-step approach to execution.  They focus on the “how”, offering a documented series of processes and tools to achieve repeatable, consistent results.  Waterfall methodology (linearly progressive stages) and Six Sigma (specific statistical methods) are examples.  “Methods” are typically prescriptive and systematics as the focus of methods (or methodology) is to relay “the how to” within a given context and therefore aims for predictable, repeatable results.  Methods are rigid to a degree, being defined by a set of rules.   Methods will follow a logical sequence of steps to achieve a given objective or goal.

 

Practices are the habitual, expert behaviors that bring the methods to life.  They are the most flexible layer, relying on professional discretion to adapt to real-time external pressures.  Practices represent the (current) “way of working”.   Practices are flexible and activity-based, integrating with the methodology and sub-methods being employed.  The aim with practices is to establish and realize continuous improvement through learning development.  Practices are dynamic and adaptive to specific contexts and to changes within those contexts. Practices are the professional behaviors that experts use to deliver service.    They rely on a practitioner’s discretion and experience to adapt to the situation.

 

Why does this hierarchy matter?  Complex service delivery fails when these layers are confused.  For instance, treating a Framework like a Method leads to “malicious compliance”, where teams follow rules so rigidly they that lose the ability to innovate or solve unique problems.  Conversely, using only Practices without a Framework leads to “hero culture”, where success depends entirely on individual talent rather than a scalable system.

 

In high-performing service models Methods and Practices work in tandem in support of the Framework in question.  The Methods provides the rigor and baseline quality – the Practices provide the flexibility to handle unique or complex conditions or situations.