A steering committee meets. A major decision is on the agenda. The sponsor dodges it: « to be reviewed by the executive committee ». The meeting ends without a decision.
A frequent scenario, almost always with the same cause: a RACI exists, approved, archived, yet disconnected from what actually plays out in the committee.
01A trivialised tool
The RACI is treated as a compliance deliverable, when it should formalise decision-making power. Written alone, approved without debate, it is only reopened in a crisis.
If we disagree on a major issue two months from now, who decides? If the answer is unclear, the RACI will collapse at the first tension.
02Three RACIs, three logics
Operational
Focused on tasks, owned by the team.
Project
Focused on deliverables and milestones, owned by the PMO.
Governance
Focused on decisions and arbitrations, owned by the sponsor and the committee.
The governance RACI does not describe who does what, but who decides what: applying operational granularity to it dilutes the real arbitrations.
03The mistakes that keep coming back
- Confusion between Responsible and Accountable. The « R » executes, the « A » answers for the result. Often, one and the same person holds both everywhere.
- Several « A »s on a single decision.At a local fund manager, the scope of a regulatory reporting overhaul fell to both the business and the CIO. Without a single accountable, the matter stayed open for seven weeks.
- A sponsor without a real mandate.In a European institution, the sponsor of a digitalisation programme had no authority over the budget, managed by the authorising officer: each reallocation added ten days to the arbitration.
- A RACI mapped onto the org chart, not the decision circuit. A director « accountable » on paper, never consulted.
- Overlapping bodies. Steering, business and technical committees handle the same topics, or approve points already settled elsewhere.
- Oversized governance.At a mid-sized PSF, a 150,000-euro project inherited the governance of a group programme: committee time accounted for 15 % of the budget.
- A RACI that is never updated.In a public administration, a change of programme director was only reflected after eight months, flagged as a risk by internal audit.
04Building a RACI that works
- Start from decisions, not roles.
- One single accountable per decision, no exception.
- Review the RACI at every major milestone, not on a calendar.
- Co-build it with stakeholders, before tensions arise.
- Document the escalation mechanism in case of disagreement.
The setup must stay proportionate: a light committee for a one-off project, several levels and a dedicated executive sponsor for a multi-entity programme. The CSSF’s expectations on internal governance and the traceability requirements of European institutions reinforce this need for clarity, without justifying excessive heaviness.
Self-assessmentFive questions, five « yes »
Answer each one honestly.
- Does each structuring decision have a single « A » identified?
- Does the sponsor have a real arbitration mandate, budget included?
- Do the committees have real decision-making power?
- Has the RACI been revised since the last major milestone?
- Do stakeholders refer to it spontaneously?
Fewer than four « yes »: your governance deserves to be made objective.
In short
Well designed, a governance RACI speeds up decisions. Poorly designed, it produces its effects months later: slowed decisions, cost overruns, loss of trust, when an arbitration has to be made under pressure. It all comes down to the rigour with which it is built, discussed and kept up to date.
Would your governance RACI survive the two-month test?
