When does a method become a framework?

A framework, if you look closely, is a particular way of framing the context. This framing helps us define tangible variables, which could then be changed, improved, measured, and tested. It gives us a better perspective of the outcomes in relation to the input variables.

So, if I’m solving a problem, I may approach it differently than another individual. An individual A could achieve different outcomes compared to an individual B. How does one method become to be adopted as a standardised framework? Is it because of the impact of success? The rate of success? Or the scale of success? Or just Frequency of usage? Perhaps all of them.

Given an approach to work in different problem-solving conditions, there needs to be a high level of similarity with the context or conditions. It is, therefore, astonishing how many of these frameworks get passed around without evidence (of their proven efficacy) in this content/information era.

Should frameworks be broad or narrow?

When the framework is narrowly focused, with well defined variables and conditions, the scope of application becomes smaller but may prove to be highly effective in the given scenario and context. Make it too broad accommodating wide-ranging applications, it ceases to be a tool for incremental outcomes.

(examples to follow soon)

Where do we draw the line? How does a method become a framework? Or, are frameworks just agents to promote one's own ideas and agenda?