What a RACI matrix does
A RACI matrix is a grid that lists activities down one side and roles or teams across the top. In each cell it shows what part, if any, that role plays in the activity. The point is to make visible who does the work, who answers for it and who needs to be kept in the loop, so that tasks are not left unclaimed or done twice.
The four letters stand for:
- Responsible (R): does the work. There can be several.
- Accountable (A): answers for the outcome and has the final say. There should be exactly one per activity.
- Consulted (C): gives input before the work is finished or the decision is made. Communication runs both ways.
- Informed (I): is told about the outcome. Communication runs one way.
Some organizations use variations, such as adding a letter for those who support or verify, but the basic four are enough for most purposes.
An illustrative example
Imagine a company that shares a customer records platform across sales, support and finance. The table below is a made-up illustration, not a recommended allocation. Roles are the platform owner (who manages the system), the data steward (who looks after record quality), the sales lead, the support lead and the security adviser.
| Activity | Platform owner | Data steward | Sales lead | Support lead | Security adviser |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve new user access | A | R | C | C | I |
| Define required customer fields | C | A | R | R | I |
| Apply software updates | A/R | I | I | I | C |
| Review user access periodically | A | C | R | R | R |
| Respond to a security incident | R | I | I | I | A |
A few things are worth noticing.
- Every row has exactly one A. Where one person is both accountable and does the work, the cell can read A/R.
- Not every role appears in every row. A blank cell means the role has no defined part, which is fine.
- Who is accountable can differ by activity. The security adviser is accountable in the last row though they do not own the platform, which would need to be agreed in advance.
- Rows should be activities or decisions, not vague topics like “security”.
Building one step by step
- List the activities. Choose the recurring tasks and decisions that matter for the shared system: access requests, change approval, data quality checks, vendor management, incident response and so on. Aim for a manageable list, roughly a dozen or two rather than hundreds.
- List the roles. Use roles rather than named people, so the chart survives staff changes. Include business units where relevant.
- Draft the assignments. Do this with the people involved, not for them. Start with the A, then the R.
- Check the rules. Each row needs one A and at least one R. Look for rows with too many Cs, which often means slow decisions, and for columns where one role has an overload of As.
- Test with real cases. Walk through a recent request or incident and see whether the chart would have given a clear answer.
- Agree and publish. Make it easy to find.
Where RACI helps
RACI is most useful in shared setups where people do not report to one manager and where responsibility is therefore blurry. It can clarify the line between the technical owner and the business owner of a system, a split described in the article on system owners and process owners. It also gives a starting point for decision rights discussions, though RACI by itself does not say what authority a role holds.
Where it falls short
RACI is a simple tool, and its limits should be recognised.
- It records intent, not behaviour. A chart can say someone is responsible while they lack time or skills.
- It can hide disagreement. Filling in the letters can feel like agreement when the underlying debate has not been resolved.
- It goes stale. Roles change, and a chart nobody maintains is worse than none.
- It can become heavy. Large matrices with many roles and activities are rarely read.
- Consulted and informed are easy to overuse. Adding everyone to be safe slows work and dilutes the meaning.
- It does not cover sequence or timing. For process flow, other tools are more suitable.
Common mistakes
- Two As on the same row, which usually means neither takes ownership.
- No A at all, because “the team” is accountable.
- Treating C as approval. A consulted party gives input, but does not hold a veto unless the decision rights say so.
- Naming a committee as R. Committees decide; individuals or teams do the work.
- Building the chart alone and presenting it as fact. People are more likely to act on a chart they helped build.
Keeping it current
Review the matrix when ownership changes, when a new system joins the shared environment and as part of regular governance reviews. If a row regularly causes confusion in practice, that suggests the activity or role is poorly defined, rather than that the chart needs more letters.