Architectural Challenge #2: Master the 3-Cs for Clear, Confident Decisions
Welcome to this week's Architectural Challenge.
Two mistakes I see architects constantly making (pulled straight from CTA Coaching feedback): 'Solving requirements independently with a lack of consideration for the impact on the overall solution and user experience. Inability to proactively justify solution choices.”
The root causes (beyond not understanding requirements):
- Taking requirements at face value instead of reading between the lines
- “Forcing” solutions instead of letting them emerge from analyzing the business process.
Let’s fix this.
Enter the 3-C Method: Collect, Connect, Conclude.
Simple framework. Good solutions. Bulletproof justifications.
Let's see this in action with a real question from a recent coaching session:
"Should I use Leads or Accounts for onboarding new suppliers?"
Hint: The answer isn't Lead OR Account.
What seems basic will transform how you approach every architectural decision.
3-C Method
Here's how to systematically work through ambiguous requirements
Collect - find the evidence to inform your decision
Connect - build your simplified mental model(s)
Conclude - make your decision by combining your model with considerations
With experience, you'll run these steps in parallel and leap to conclusions. But let's go step by step to see how it works.
Note:
What seems simple is often what works best. Under pressure, most architects struggle with ambiguity and leap to poorly thought-through solutions. The 3-C Method ensures clarity, discipline, and bulletproof reasoning.
Requirements
Read these requirements and draft a justified solution for modelling the Supplier Onboarding Process (No need to draw, but consider taking notes)
- New suppliers complete the online registration process. [NOTE: “Registration portal should move to Salesforce as per Project Overview”]. Part of the information provided is what produce they will be able to provide, which they select from a list.
- They are then assigned an account manager and PM(s) [NOTE: “PMs operate within a product category (root vegetables, e.g)”] based upon data entered. This is currently manual but G&V would like to automate this.
- New suppliers will be visited by the G&V team for an inspection of the setup and the quality of the produce, all of which are graded and held on the account record. Only the Supplier Agents and Supplier VPs should be able to view these grading fields.
- In some countries, suppliers must provide permits and other government issued-information to prove they are eligible to make sales. The mechanism of this proof varies: some are emailed or faxed to the G&V offices, some provide an electronic data interchange with government systems. When this is required, onboarding cannot continue until this documentation has been provided.
- Invoicing terms will be established as part of the onboarding (and at subsequent annual renewals). G&V use DocuSign for this, but have been manually creating contracts and would like to generate them in a more consistent fashion.
Step 1 - Collect
Requirement 1:
New suppliers complete the online registration process … what produce they will be able to provide, which they select from a list.
- Initial Thoughts
- Online registration could be user self-registration or lead form
- Account if need to modify post sign-up
- Lead if qualification process follows
- Conclusion
- Insufficient evidence.
IMPORTANT:
You have two options on how to proceed.
1. Either park your decision
2. make a loose decision and be willing to pivot.
But there's the common risk of Confirmation Bias, meaning you will filter all information to support (confirm) your decision instead of looking for contradictory evidence.
Requirement 2:
"They are then assigned an account manager and PM(s) based upon data entered. Process should be automated“
- Initial Thoughts
- more than 1 user assigned - Lead Assignment Rules will not suffice
- Multiple PM(s) need an additional object for the association - Account Team could fit, but might not be sufficient if we need more than just an association and sharing.
- Conclusion
- Insufficient evidence.Customised assignment logic required either way
Requirement 3:
"New suppliers will be visited by the G&V team for an inspection of the setup and the quality of the produce, all of which are graded and held on the account record"
- Initial Thoughts
- Held on account is misleading because quality might differ across produce, hence SupplierProduce__c
- Setup will live on the entity long term, but could be mapped after lead conversion
- Conclusion
- No evidence, park for now.
Requirement 4:
“suppliers must provide permits … to prove they are eligible to make sales … emailed or faxed … without onboarding can not continue”
- Initial Thoughts
- What happens if they are not eligible? Seems awfully lot like a qualification process that could make sense on Lead
- Req 2 mentioned automation. Good candidate for automation as well with document upload via public or secured community
- Conclusion
- No evidence, park for now.
Requirement 5:
“Invoicing terms will be established as part of the onboarding (and at subsequent annual renewals).... creating contracts and would like to generate them in a more consistent fashion.
- Initial Thoughts
- Contracts require Accounts
- Conclusion
- At this stage we need to commit to Account
Key Insight: Contracts are the decisive factor. Everything before this could go either way, but contracts REQUIRE Accounts.
Step 2 - Connect
When you collect evidence, focus on creating simple mental models that let you see the end-to-end process clearly from multiple perspectives. Below, I’ve broken it down into nouns — the core entities we care about.
Note:
I chose a text representation on purpose to highlight the importance of abstraction and simplicity here.If you can't model it simply in text, you don't understand it fully.
Process:
Registration > Qualification (Visit & Permits) > (Negotiation?) > Contract
Entity flow:
Supplier + Supplier Produce[] + PM Assignment[]> Visit > Permits[] >Contract > Renewal[]
Notice how the entity flow reveals complexity the process flow hides, while each tells you a clear story - business and technical.
Step 3 - Conclude
General Considerations
- Unclear how many of supplier registrations or successful onboarding
- Automation and self-service appears to be important
Lead for onboarding:
- Supplier registration fits the native lead to account conversion process.
- No license for suppliers required
- Qualification will filter ineligible suppliers and improve Account data quality
- Suppliers can not modify registration data without a custom solution
Account for onboarding:
- Licenses required
- Suppliers can customize registration data securely
- Data cleaning strategy required for “trash” suppliers.
Conclusion:
Up until contract both paths can be viable given the lack of decisive evidence. However there’s one detail in the Project Overview that pushes me personally more towards Leads.
“Farmers (called suppliers), who pay a % of all sales to use the G&V services.”
If G&V markets to suppliers (likely given their revenue model), then Lead → Account conversion provides critical campaign ROI tracking.
Master this level of architectural thinking
The 3-C Process is one of 100+ frameworks we teach to help you operate and defend your designs at CTA level.
Learn more about our CTA Coaching.
Wrap-Up
Notice we didn't have to force the Lead OR Account decision. Because with the 3-C method we followed the business process, constructed models and let evidence guide the solution, that we can well justify.
This is Architecture Intelligence in action - systematic thinking that creates clarity from ambiguity. (Yes, this example assumes familiarity with the subject, but the method works universally)
Next time you face an ambiguous requirement:
- Resist the urge to jump to conclusions
- Collect evidence without bias
- Build simple models from multiple perspectives
- Let the solution emerge from context