Use this flowchart instead to fix the friction without relying on outdated frameworks
The engineering manager told me, for what felt like the tenth time “we just need a RACI to create role clarity between product and engineering.” And frankly, he was getting frustrated that I still hadn’t delivered one.
I was working with this client after a big acquisition. The engineering lead was from the acquired company, while much of the product team was on the acquirer side. Product and engineering were butting heads against each other, both trying to do their jobs but not sure how to partner together.
They believed that if we just wrote down everyone’s roles and responsibilities, they would start working together better. As a product operations consultant with years of experience resolving team friction, I refused. It wouldn’t actually fix anything.
Unclear responsibilities are a frequent source of tension on product teams. A RACI matrix – which is an accountability chart with sections for who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed – is commonly brought up as a way to solve these ambiguities.
The framework attempts to clarify who has what role in different aspects of work. It provides something to point to when things fall apart.
It’s critical that we help teams work through role and responsibility confusion. However, RACI is often an ineffective approach to solving these problems. Instead of fixing collaboration issues, it stifles them by reinforcing outdated management models.
RACI comes from a factory-oriented model of management
RACI, originally called a “decision rights matrix” or a “responsibility attribution matrix” emerged in the 1950s. Like many midcentury managerial science trends, it attempted to apply frameworks developed in factory settings to creative work.
Over-reliance of RACI leads to a particular team mindset:
- Absence of accountability: Individuals who are not responsible for a particular task use that as an excuse to not be held accountable if the team doesn’t succeed as a whole.
- Infantilization: It sets the expectation that individuals can’t determine what is a good use of their time. A chart or a manager should tell them what to do.
- Territorialism: Team members focus on “their tasks” rather than the collective goal. They get upset when others overstep their bounds.
This mindset opposes the mentality needed for a truly empowered, collaborative team. Bringing RACI in to improve collaboration is likely to backfire.
The problems RACI wants to fix
When I see teams calling for RACI, there are typically three underlying issues that they’re actually trying to address:
Team structure challenges
Team structure challenges are often at the root of responsibility confusion. Sometimes there are missing skill sets on the team to fulfill the goal. In these cases, nobody wants to step outside their comfort zone to take up unfamiliar tasks, so everyone waits, hoping someone else will do it.
Team structure issues can also show up as poor collaboration. This happens when team members are unclear about their roles or when communication relies too heavily on managers and meetings. As a result, the team struggles to solve problems together.
Mission clarity issues
Mission clarity issues form the second major category. When a team doesn’t have a clear purpose or shared goal, this strategic ambiguity leads to confusion about what work needs to be done. This creates uncertainty about who needs to do the work.
Handoff mentality problems
Handoff mentality problems are the third common issue. Remember how RACI comes out of a factory model of knowledge work? Handoffs do as well. If a company expects that I do my work, then pass it off to you, who then hands it back to me for the next step, the team is going to struggle. Product development is never so clean.
This was hurting my post-acquisition team. The two companies hadn’t yet figured out how to work well together, and so were handing off work from one company’s people to the other. Nobody was sure how to make a handoff successful. The lack of collaboration meant a lot of miscommunication.
If these are the underlying issues that need to be addressed, a RACI chart won’t solve them. That being said, there are still situations where RACI can be useful, which I’ll explore in the next section.
Misusing RACI
These are three common mis-applications of RACI that I’ve seen in my work:
Between departments
RACI shouldn’t be used to delineate responsibilities between departments. A chart outlining what product marketing is responsible for versus what product management is responsible for signals deeper issues.
Placing it between departments indicates team structure problems or a handoff mentality.
Within product teams
RACI should not be used inside product teams to delineate responsibilities.
The product trio (or quartet, or duo, whatever number you have) needs to have mission clarity and a commitment to get the work done, regardless of who handles specific tasks. Rigid role boundaries undermine productive group problem-solving.
As job description substitutes
Finally, RACI should not substitute for a job description. While job descriptions can be useful tools to help set expectations about what a person should focus on in their work, they address one role at a time.
Unlike RACI, job descriptions don’t attempt to set boundaries about what other roles should and should not do. Job descriptions focus on one role only.
Addressing team structure, mission clarity, and handoff mentality issues requires deeper organizational work. Strong product leadership should be focused on addressing these challenges with thoughtful, sustained attention rather than quick-fix frameworks.
Ways to clarify decision-making
RACI can help with specific, short-term projects to clarify how decisions will be made with people outside your main team.
This isn’t about creating a chart that says “design will make UX decisions.” It’s rather clarifying “these are the key stakeholders who are not on the team and how they need to be involved.”
When RACI isn’t the right choice to clarify decision-making, here are some alternative frameworks to consider:
RAPID framework
If you feel you must use a multi-level acronym framework, pick one focused exclusively on decision-making.
For teams seeking alternatives, the RAPID framework (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide) or DARE (Decide, Advise, Recommend, Stakeholders) often proves more effective because it focuses specifically on decision-making processes.
These frameworks help teams understand who has input into decisions versus who makes the final call. They address a common source of team friction without creating rigid role boundaries.
Single accountable individual approaches
Christian Duchesne and Alex Nichols both suggest using a single accountable individual as a fix. Some organizations call this a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI), while others use simplified “A and Cs” (the Accountable and Consulteds) from RACI.
Either approach empowers an individual to step into a leadership role with the necessary support to succeed.
These alternatives create clarity around decision-making without reinforcing the factory mindset.
Fix the root causes
When someone speaks up in a meeting asking for a RACI, take a minute to assess. What are the true issues that need addressing?
Fill the skills gap
Team structure challenges can mean there’s work nobody wants to take on team members lack the necessary skills. In these situations, give people protection to take risks outside their comfort zone or bring in someone to supplement the team.
For example, if API documentation is needed, provide training or temporarily add a technical writer to the project.
Empower the team to find a mission
Mission clarity issues require filling in strategic blanks. Either empower the team to set their own mission or guide them towards defining a clear team purpose. As they develop focus in their work, the specific goals they need to achieve will naturally follow.
Consider facilitating a workshop where the team defines their “why” or encouraging them to take the lead.
Identify and eliminate handoffs
Handoff mentality problems can be addressed by using a process map to identify where handoffs are occurring.
If the groups frequently interact, consider unifying them into one team with a single mission. If the handoffs are uncommon but repeatable, create standard operating procedures as guidance.
In my post-acquisition example, mapping the handoffs between the two functions revealed unnecessary back-and-forth. We eliminated it by creating more ways for product and engineering to work in concert.
Recognizing which issue you’re facing and when to use or avoid RACI can be a challenge. To help, I’ve created a flowchart that illustrates how I approach situations where I’m asked to build out a RACI:
It’s harder to address the root causes of collaboration issues than it is to simply write up a RACI chart. Addressing these concerns will create better organizational resilience and more effective teamwork.
Lead the team you want to build, build the team you want to lead
When a request for a RACI matrix occurs, it’s leadership’s job to resolve the underlying conflict. Leadership shouldn’t be creating processes for people to assign blame to each other when a project goes south; they should be creating an environment where the team succeeds as a whole.
For the team I worked with post-acquisition, we had to address the handoff mentality directly. I worked with leadership to redefine the collaboration model between product and engineering. The new approach created a greater sense of partnership and ownership over their shared work.
The choices you make around tools and frameworks will define your company culture. RACI encourages a blame culture by focusing on individual responsibilities rather than team results. Figure out what behaviors you want to promote and choose your tools accordingly.
The next time someone asks for a RACI chart, resist the urge to reach for quick fixes. Instead, ask yourself: how can I lead my team toward clarity, trust, and shared purpose? The tools you choose today shape the culture you build tomorrow.
* affiliate link
