Project delivery
RACI matrix
Deliverables and decisions down, roles across, with a formula counting the accountable entries in each row. Exactly one A per row, and the count column makes a second one visible immediately.
What it is
A RACI matrix exists to prevent one failure, which is two people believing the other is accountable for the same thing. When a decision stalls, each assumes the other has it, and when it goes wrong each can point at the other.
The rule that does the work is exactly one accountable owner per row. This sheet counts them with a formula, so a second A is visible on the row rather than in a meeting three months later. Zero is the other half of the same problem and harder to spot by eye, because a row full of responsible and consulted entries looks busy while nobody answers for it.
Agreeing it is most of the value. A matrix drafted alone and circulated records what one person assumed, and the disagreements it surfaces are the point. Where a row cannot be agreed, the project has discovered that authority is genuinely unclear, which is a governance question rather than a formatting problem.
When to use it
- A decision has been sitting with nobody for two weeks and everybody thought somebody else had it.
- Two departments both believe they approve the same thing.
- A new team is forming and the boundaries between roles have not been drawn.
- Escalations are arriving that should have been decided three levels down.
The columns
- Deliverable or decision
- Sponsor
- Project manager
- Solution lead
- Operations manager
- Regulatory affairs
- Accountable count
The template
| Deliverable or decision | Sponsor | Project manager | Solution lead | Operations manager | Regulatory affairs | Accountable count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project charter | A | R | C | C | I | 1 |
| Scope baseline | A | R | C | C | I | 1 |
| Solution design | I | C | A | C | C | 1 |
| Delivery approach and tailoring | A | R | C | I | C | 1 |
| Change requests above tolerance | A | R | C | C | C | 1 |
| Change requests within tolerance | I | A | R | C | I | 1 |
| Compliance evidence pack | I | C | C | I | A | 1 |
| Go live decision | A | R | C | C | C | 1 |
| Operational acceptance | I | C | C | A | I | 1 |
| Benefit realisation after handover | C | I | I | A | I | 1 |
| Supplier selection | A | R | C | I | I | 1 |
| Lessons capture | I | A | R | C | I | 1 |
The Accountable count column is a formula counting the A entries in each row. It should read 1 everywhere, and anything else is the fault this matrix exists to catch.
The four letters
- Responsible. Does the work. More than one R in a row is normal, since several people usually contribute.
- Accountable. Answers for the outcome and has the authority to decide. Exactly one per row, always.
- Consulted. Gives input before the decision, in a two way conversation. Their view has to be sought and does not have to be followed.
- Informed. Told after the decision, one way. No obligation to respond.
Why exactly one A
Two accountable owners is the failure the matrix exists to prevent. When a decision stalls, each assumes the other has it, and when it goes wrong each can point at the other. The count column makes that visible on the row rather than in a meeting three months later.
Zero accountable owners is the other half of the same problem and is harder to spot by eye, because a row full of R and C entries looks busy. Nobody answers for it, so it drifts.
Where two people genuinely both need to decide, the row is describing two decisions. Split it. A go live decision that needs both the sponsor and the operations manager is really a technical readiness decision and a business readiness decision, and separating them gives each an owner and makes the sequence explicit.
Reading the columns
A column with A against almost everything is a bottleneck, and that person's availability is now the project's critical path. Push accountability down to where the work and the knowledge are.
A column that is entirely I is somebody who does not need to be in the room. That is a finding worth acting on, since the usual reason they are on the matrix is that somebody senior said they should be involved, and involvement without a decision is attendance.
A column that is entirely C is a reviewer with no ownership. Sometimes correct, as with an assurance function. Often it means an expert whose input is sought and whose recommendations nobody has to act on, which is a frustrating position that produces disengagement.
Rows are deliverables and decisions, not tasks
A matrix at task level runs to hundreds of rows and nobody reads it. Twelve to twenty rows covering the deliverables a sponsor would recognise and the decisions people actually argue about is the useful size.
Include the contentious ones deliberately. Change requests, go live, operational acceptance and anything crossing a departmental boundary are where ambiguity is expensive, and those rows are the reason to build the matrix at all.
Agreeing it is most of the value
A matrix drafted alone and circulated records what one person assumed. The disagreements it surfaces are the point, and they surface only if the people named are in the conversation.
Where a row cannot be agreed, that is not a failure of the exercise. It is the project discovering that authority is genuinely unclear, which is a governance question to be resolved rather than a formatting problem to be smoothed over.
Questions people ask
- What if two people genuinely both have to decide?
- Then the row is describing two decisions. Split it. A go live decision needing both the sponsor and operations is really a technical readiness decision and a business readiness decision, and separating them gives each an owner and makes the sequence explicit.
- How many rows should it have?
- Twelve to twenty, covering deliverables a sponsor would recognise and the decisions people actually argue about. A matrix at task level runs to hundreds of rows and nobody reads it.
- What does a column of nothing but informed mean?
- That the person does not need to be in the room. It is usually somebody senior who was added because they should be involved, and involvement with no decision attached is attendance.