Talk:Responsibility assignment matrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


The final sentence of the Methodology section mentions a "Variations" section but there is not one present. Suggest removing this part for the timebeing to avoid confusion. If someone has variations on the definitions, they can add them later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Versions and Category[edit]

I added the Versions information in from the page history and added the category back to the page. For the individual who removed that information, if you feel that it does not belong with this page information please give a reason. The version information is valuable and the Category of Project Management is appropriate. Thanks. JOE-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A is for Approver?[edit]

I got some feedback that A is for Approver.  ?? -- (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-- (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) In essence, the original scheme has a single "Accountable" but can have several "Responsible"; this can cause confusion over the difference betwween definitions. Changing "Accountable" to "Approver" helps to clarify that. However, the alternative scheme defined here removes the two-tier responsibility at the task level and specifies that, for each task, one person is responsible for its execution; they may be assisted by others and will need to communicate (two-way "Consultation" and one-way "Inform"). Where a higher authority is needed to approve a task, that is added as a subsequent task where approver/authority is "Responsible". It may sound cumbersome but, if applied consistently, it works well.Steve @ Aberdeen <>< (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To remove the problem of A meaning Accountable and R meaning Responsible, which can cause confusion. Have you heard of the alternative system ADICO? A= Accountable (accountable for the completion of the activities, able to commit resources for completion), D= Does it (actually does the work), I= Informed(one way conversation), C= Consulted (2 way conversation), 0= zero or not required for the activity.Fredsocks (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not heard of this one before. If you can find some references for it, you should include it. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approvers and those Accountable for ensuring an activity is completed are not synonymous. For example, the Project Manager is tasked with ensuring the project and all artifacts within it are completed and approved. In the case of approver, three could be many that need to sign-off and they are most likely cross departmental. For example, the project manager is "Accountable" for ensuring a requirements document is created and approved by all required stakeholders--One of which is the Project Business Sponsor. Other approvers might include VP Marketing, CFO, Legal etc... and therefore you would not list all of them in the RACI since only one role gets the "A". User:Goldy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur with above ... Accountable discusses 3 roles : "approving authority", "the one ultimately answerable" and "the one who delegates" they are not necessilary synomonus.

Merge proposal[edit]

The article on Responsibility assignment matrix cover the same ground as RACI matrix; so I would like to propose redirecting Responsibility assignment matrix to the appropriate section in this article. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article on RASIC is even more similar to RACI matrix; so I have also proposed merging RASIC with this article. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if the merge has already happened, but sounds good to me. Showeropera (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the move to have articles on fully articulated titles (not the abbreviations), perhaps the main articles should be the Responsibility assignment matrix itself, with the RACI matrix being the first/main example, followed by all the other variations. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO -- most people are familiar with the term RACI and will search on it. I go so far as to say that searching on RACI should go to the disambiguation page (as it does now), but that if one enters "" rather than going to the disambiguation page that should be redirected right here. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's cool, because even if we make the main article Responsibility assignment matrix, the RACI matrix will still redirect there. However, it's not possible to have RACI in the URL go to one place while RACI entered in the search box go somewhere else. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The merge has now been proposed for two months, with some agreement and no disagreement. The merge will now be requested for the coming week. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RSI associated with Project Management Institute[edit]

I'm studying the whole PMI-PMP standard and I'm surprised to see the reference to Project Management Institute as proposing RSI. I searched all the standards and practices. I easily find RACI matrix in the Fourth Edition, but no mention to RSI. The bibliographical mention points to a curriculum from a PMI Chapter for a school project. I understand that it is an appropriate usage because teachers had to simplify the matter for the young people. However, as the Project Management Institute is working to develop standards for big and very big professional international projects, I doubt that RSI would be endorsed in those projects, because more precise roles are needed. I suggest to precise the reference to mention that it is for the young or very simplified occasions. It would be sad to remove this item, but if PMI was the only user of it, it would be better to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domroy (talkcontribs) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Domroy. I second your thoughts. If you don't feel this reference should be there then just remove it. Pm master 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed and removed - this is a reference submitted from PMI Kansas City, as something mentioned in a course called Project Management for Kids - saved here for posterity: Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A version used by the Project Management Institute: Project Management for Kids, a course run by PMI Kansas City
These people are the doers of the work. They must complete the task or objective or make the decision. Several people can be jointly responsible.
This person is the owner of the work. He or she must sign off or approve when the task, objective or decision is complete. This person must make sure that responsibilities are assigned in the matrix for all related activities. There is only one person accountable, which means that the buck stops there.
These people need to be kept in the picture. They need updates on progress or decision, but they do not need to be formally consulted, nor do they contribute directly to the task or decision.

Removing uncited variations of RACI inter alia[edit]

In undertaking a general clean-up and adding citations to remove the refimprove tag, I have identified several sections which either have no significant citations or have competing definitions. I have removed them and posted their content here with an explanation, if anyone can provide any citations for them or resolve the ambiguity, then we can always take them back into the body of the article itself. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See separate section on RSI for reasoning.


There was only one book citation for this, with definitions for what the letters stood for that differed from this entry

Another alternative:
The role mainly responsible to complete a task
One or more additional roles that are assigned to support the primary role
Review required
Those who should be consulted once work has been completed, e.g. checking for compliance with standards, etc.
Input required
Those who should be consulted as work is being prepared, i.e. the driving input
Signature required
Those who need to signed off on work, and are therefore the approver or accountable role


No book citations could be found for this at all

This model is used for decision making process and supports reaching decisions faster while keeping all the actors informed, by reducing the "debate time" between the actors involved:
Process Owner (or Process Leader)
One person has the Process Owner role to drive the decision making process on behalf of the Approver and is clear on that responsibility. The Process Owner is expected to bring well thought out/researched options to the Approver who will make decision regardless of consensus among all stakeholders.
The Approver decides by vetoing or choosing one of a series of well laid out options presented by the Process Owner. The Approver is expected to possess the skills and experience to make decisions that will not be overturned, and helps to mentor/coach others until they gain requisite experience to become an Approver. Only the Approver may veto all options.
Consulted people must not attempt to veto by going to the level above to overturn a decision.
Those who carry out the decision once made. Execution with excellence is expected regardless of intellectual buy-in.


No book citations could be found for this at all

As with the other models, this model is used for designating roles in the decision making process and the supporting work, to ensure clarity of responsibility, reduced iteration in communications, and no unexpected stakeholders. It has an explicit "Owner" moniker that some find too all encompassing, as compared to the "Approver" role.
This person owns and oversees the process for decision making. The process Owner formulates a recommendation based on Reviewer and Participant input, which the Approver uses to make a final decision. They may communicate the nature of any disagreements. They conduct any post-mortem or process-oriented communication.
The Approver may initiate the process and designate the Owner. This person works with the owner to scope the decision-making purview. They handle any escalations from Reviewers, and make the final decision based on recommendation from the Owner.
These are affected parties who will be impacted. They can escalate directly to Approver. They must participate to have a voice.
These are often Self-selected or non-critical path input providers. This group also represents notification-only or one-way communication recipients. They can only escalate to Owner.
I totally agree. I did the same research myself, and the references are either weak or non existent. Pm master 11:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Submitter" or "Requestor"[edit]

I'm looking for a process assignment categorization system that includes a role of "submitter" or "requestor" or somesuch. I would prefer something that's compatible with a diagramming system like EPC or BPM. The point of the goal is to have a complete end-to-end chain of responsibility and action, however none of the RACI variants seem to fit (except inasmuch as "Informed" would fit the submitter, but it's not very explicit) and I can't find any other similar system that fits. I'm reticent to create an internally-used variant of my own, preferring to adhere to some sort of published standard. Does anyone here have any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdray (talkcontribs) 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have also seen RAIDE (Book definition to be found, possibly part of Kaplan's work) In the definition I have seen RAIDE stands for

  • Recommender
  • Approver
  • Informed (Consulted)
  • Decider
  • Executer

With the obvious definitions for each word -- (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No history paragraph[edit]

I'm searching where and when this tool has been invented.

  1. The oldest Google book to mention it was in 1999.
  2. ITIL has integrated it as if it was a part of it (and ITIL talks about it).
  3. The Motorola Sig Sigma method did that too, and our images are categorized like that (but that's not into Six Sigma).

So, I'm not ready to create a history paragraph now. JackPotte (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mistake in the picture[edit]

In the picture "Assigning people to facilities, there is a row "C04 Security Governance (draft)". I think there is a problem in that this row does not have an "R" in it. This means that no one is actually tasked with actually doing this item. This is a mistake in the content of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, it does seem that "R" would be mandatory. It occurs to me that the image could be replaced by a wikitable – given that it's just a text grid – and corrected in the process. Unfortunately this isn't a good time for me to do this myself, but I'll leave this thought here for future reference ... Wdchk (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pageviews, Importance-assessed as High[edit]

This article gets an average of 2,162 pageviews a day, which is astounding. I have accordingly reassessed its Importance as High. Please improve the article, for the next million readers. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]