Making rules explicity allows us to reduce complexity and hold ourselves accountable.
Rules facilitate interaction by clarifying what a person in a role must do, must not do, or may do. See Deontic
Unfortunately the IAD terms for different types of rules seem arcane to me. I will share my understanding of their practical meaning and use--because I do think the distinctions are critical for better governance.
.
In the past, philosophy has discussed rules for when expressions are used. The two rules are Constitutive Rules and Regulative Rules - wikipedia 
The concept of Speech acts finds its origin in Wittgenstein and John Rawls, and has been elaborated by G.C.J. Midgley, Max Black, G.H. von Wright, David Shwayder, and John Searle.
Whereas regulative rules are prescriptions that regulate a pre-existing activity (whose existence is logically independent of the rules), constitutive rules constitute an activity the existence of which is logically dependent on the rules.
For example: traffic rules are ''regulative rules'' that prescribe certain behaviour in order to regulate the traffic. Without these rules however, the traffic would not cease to be. In contrast: the rules of chess are ''constitutive rules'' that constitute the game. Without these rules chess would not exist, since the game is logically dependent on the rules.
# See also