RACI matrix
Assign execution, accountability, consultation and information for each deliverable, then check authority, capacity and actual agreement.
Use RACI when work crosses roles and people disagree about who does it, owns the result, provides input or receives updates. This worksheet uses one Accountable owner per row and allows multiple Responsible contributors.
Stable tasks and deliverables, roles and authority records, working relationships, information needs, acceptance status and availability.
A per-deliverable RACI draft with gaps, authority questions, communication triggers and confirmation actions.
On this page
How to use it
- Define checkable deliverables with stable IDs and boundaries.
- Check roles and authority before choosing the final owner of each result.
- Assign R/A/C/I by row; coordinate multiple R contributors and use one A in this worksheet.
- Specify input and update triggers, channels, separate approvals and workload checks.
- Ask the roles to agree, retain draft status until then, and review after scope, people or authority changes.
Keep its limits in mind
Accountable is not automatically the approver of every step; approval rights need separate evidence. Multiple R contributors or a combined R/A are possible, but this worksheet uses one A per row. Write None where C or I is unnecessary. Assignments do not prove acceptance, available capacity or authorization; discuss gaps and conflicts.
Drafting responsibilities for five preparation deliverables
Fictional teaching example: Pinebridge is preparing a booking-service pilot. Packet F0 records one mature W0 cohort: 100 eligible requests, 60 confirmed bookings and 48 completed services within those 60. The future pilot, staffing and plans are unapproved and unexecuted.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Keep task IDs: A–E match the Gantt schedule. The Lead is the proposed A for A–D. At E, Lead prepares the material and Sponsor is accountable for the pilot decision under F0.
Coordinate multiple R contributors: D includes both Builder and Ops, each needing four hours. The Lead coordinates. Consultation is proposed before the relevant checks, and updates when status or decisions change; exact channels are not yet agreed.
Result and status: Five aligned rows expose responsibility and authority questions. The draft neither makes Lead the approver of everything nor establishes anyone's acceptance, available capacity or pilot approval.
One A per row is this worksheet's convention. D has two R contributors. Assignments remain unaccepted, exact C/I channels unagreed, and the pilot unapproved.
Next step: The Lead should confirm scope, rights and effort with each R/A, then agree C/I triggers and channels and record actual acceptance.
Three conditions to check before assigning letters
Use a RACI draft when a deliverable crosses roles and the team needs to distinguish doing the work, owning the outcome, providing input and receiving updates. Name a checkable output in each row. “Operations” is a role; “C: rehearsal checklist ready for joint review” is a deliverable. The row needs a boundary and acceptance condition before the letters can resolve anything.
Pause if the deliverable is changing during the conversation. A role can appear to accept a small preparation task while another person assumes it includes running the service. Pause if authority is disputed: the A cell cannot create spending, release or policy rights. Pause if the proposed contributors have not checked availability. A fully populated matrix with no capacity agreement is still a draft.
This worksheet uses one A per row, while allowing several R contributors with explicit coordination. A person can hold R and A where that fits the actual arrangement. C and I need not be filled for appearance: write None where involvement is unnecessary. A long consultation list can delay work if no one knows which input is needed or when a response is due. Record triggers and channels alongside the letters.
Choose the missing coordination output
RACI describes a proposed responsibility arrangement. It does not replace scheduling, stakeholder research or the evidence needed to make a decision. Start with whichever missing output is preventing agreement.
| Method | Question to answer | Separate check still required |
|---|---|---|
| RACI | Who does, owns, contributes to and hears about each output? | Authority, acceptance and available capacity |
| Stakeholder analysis | Who is affected and whose input or authority matters? | Actual contact and documented decision rights |
| Gantt chart | When can dependent tasks fit available people and dates? | Accepted assignments and realistic capacity |
| Decision matrix | Which eligible option fits the agreed priorities? | Who may approve the chosen scope |
Worked continuation: keep A–E and the authority record aligned
Continue the fictional Pinebridge preparation case above. F0 contains one mature W0 cohort: 100 eligible requests, 60 confirmed bookings and 48 completed services within those 60. Those numbers describe an existing teaching baseline. They do not show that the future pilot occurred, improved results or received permission. The five preparation deliverables remain A Definitions, B Configuration, C Checklist, D Joint rehearsal and E Pilot decision.
Read across each original row instead of assigning a role to the whole project. Analyst is proposed R for A, Builder for B and Ops for C, with Lead as A for those rows. D has Builder and Ops as joint R contributors, with Lead accountable and coordinating. At E, Lead prepares the decision material and Sponsor is accountable for the pilot decision under F0. The source of decision rights is F0, not the mere presence of a letter.
All assignments remain unaccepted. For D, Builder and Ops each need four hours. That is eight person-hours across two contributors; it is not automatically an eight-hour calendar activity, nor proof that four simultaneous hours are available. The timetable needs dependency and capacity checks. The table below is a confirmation agenda, not a record that anyone has been contacted.
| Output | Proposed R / A | Question before treating it as agreed |
|---|---|---|
| A Definitions | Analyst / Lead | Which definitions and acceptance checks are in scope? |
| B Configuration | Builder / Lead | Which configuration and permissions are covered? |
| C Checklist | Ops / Lead | What makes the checklist ready for joint review? |
| D Joint rehearsal | Builder + Ops / Lead | Can each supply 4h, how will they coordinate, and when? |
| E Pilot decision | Lead / Sponsor | Which decision is requested and what rights does F0 supply? |
Turn the draft into a confirmation conversation
Use a specific request: “For D, the draft proposes Builder and Ops as contributors, four hours each, with Lead coordinating. Please confirm scope and availability, or state the conflict. Consultation is proposed before the relevant checks; updates follow status or decision changes. We still need to agree the channels.” This asks for confirmation without pretending it has already happened.
Retain the original C/I mapping: A consults Ops and informs Sponsor; B consults Analyst and informs Ops; C consults Builder and informs Analyst; D consults Analyst and informs Sponsor; E consults Analyst and Ops and informs Builder. Ask what input is actually needed before each relevant check and which status changes warrant an update. Do not silently turn an informed recipient into an approver, or a consulted specialist into an accepted contributor.
Record each reply with the deliverable ID, accepted scope, capacity, conditions and unresolved question. If someone says “I can review, but cannot build,” preserve that distinction and revise the proposal before scheduling. When scope, people or authority changes, reopen the affected rows and any dependent schedule. At review, a clearer matrix demonstrates a clearer agreement only where replies support it; it does not prove the pilot succeeded or that the baseline improved.
Check your work
- Rows align with tasks, with one A and coordination for multiple R contributors.
- Approval authority has separate evidence; C/I triggers and unnecessary involvement are explicit.
- Acceptance, capacity and review remain visible; a draft is not authorization.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.