group of men riding boat — Photo by Quino Al on Unsplash

Imagine a rowing team in which no one knows what they’re doing.

How far do you think they’ll go when they’re not aligned? Will they be able to even move in the right direction? And how happy will they be with their overall performance?

And that’s, of course, if nothing terrible happens to them.

But there’s an easy way to prevent this disaster.

Read on 👇

Subscribe now

🚪 Find Your Way

When I was still in corporate, at some point I decided to move to a four-day workweek, instead of the five-day I was on. It was already a company policy that one could do that, with the caveat that their salary, vacation days, and everything else would also drop to 80%.

I went to my manager with my request and he said, “I can allow it, but I don’t know if the company will allow it. You have to talk to HR.”

So I went to HR and they said, “The company can allow it, but we don’t know if your manager will allow it. You have to talk to him.”

Turned out, this was going to be one of those topics that would be thrown around like a hot potato. Why? Because no one knew who was supposed to give the final approval. And if they didn’t know - the people who designed this process - there was no way I could. All I wanted to do was follow the process, so I could get my request approved (which I did manage, eventually…).

🛫 The Fiasco of the Heathrow Terminal 5 Opening

On 27 March 2008, Heathrow opened its new Terminal 5, a project that took five years and cost over 5 billion euros. Despite the extensive preparation, the opening day turned into a complete disaster and a major embarrassment for both Heathrow owner BAA and British Airways (BA).

Problems began as soon as BA staff arrived for their morning shifts. They faced delays getting to the building due to a shortage of designated parking spaces, forcing some to circle the area looking for a place to park.

Once inside, issues continued to mount. Staff were delayed at security checkpoints and were unfamiliar with the building layout, having not been provided with maps or guidance. Many employees didn't know where to go and had no one to call for help, taking over an hour to reach their workstations.

Additionally, IT system failures compounded the chaos. Baggage handlers' IDs were not recognized by the computers, preventing them from logging into the handling system, which led to three flights departing without any luggage. Others struggled with the Resource Management System (RMS), which allocates handlers to load or unload flights. Despite these problems, check-in staff continued to add luggage to the system. Soon bags clogged the underground conveyor system because the workers couldn't remove them quickly enough at the other end.

By lunchtime, the cumulative effect of these issues forced BA to cancel 20 flights. By 17:00 o’clock, the airline suspended all hold luggage check-in to clear the backlog of bags. This left passengers with the choice of flying with only hand luggage, finding an alternative flight, or claiming a refund. By the end of Terminal 5's first chaotic day, 34 flights had been canceled, and hundreds of passengers were stranded (out of the 40,000 that passed that day). By Saturday, BA faced a backlog of at least 15,000 bags, with some estimates closer to 20,000.

Over the following ten days, some 42,000 bags failed to travel with their owners, and over 500 flights were canceled. BA was not able to operate its full schedule from Terminal 5 until 8 April 2008, and had to postpone the transfer of its long-haul flights from Terminal 4 to Terminal 5.

According to the BA staff, the reasons for this fiasco were based on inadequate training and low company morale. Many employees didn't know about or didn’t attend the training sessions, and no volunteers wanted to come in and help on their day off. Additionally, many departments had repeatedly informed their managers that they were not ready or confident to move in, but there was a pervasive sense of overconfidence that everything would be okay on the opening day.

This disastrous launch resulted in the dismissal of BA's Director of Operations, Gareth Kirkwood, and Director of Customer Services, David Noyes. Four months after the opening, BA ran an advertising campaign to assure the public that things were finally working normally at Terminal 5.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7322453.stm

⚡️ The Impact of Unclear Expectations

Having even minimal confusion as to who does what within our team or organization, and what we are supposed to do in particular, can cause huge compounded problems. If confusion is what we operate in, here’s the working environment we’ll end up with:

Decision-Making: Not knowing how to communicate with whom about what means that the decision-makers will not have all the information they need to make important decisions.
Communication: Important decisions will not be communicated accordingly to the impacted or interested parties.
Organizational Performance: Tasks will be either duplicated or not done at all, thus lowering the overall performance of the organization.
Personal Development: A person will not be able to deliver or exceed expectations, when those expectations are unclear.
Career Development: We won’t be able to measure how well a person performs when we don’t know what exactly they’re supposed to do and how. We also won’t know what training and development will be best for them.
Motivation: A person will not know if and when they’re truly done with their tasks, thus increasing their frustration and lowering their motivation.
Tension & Conflict: Teammates will start blaming each other when things go wrong and they don’t know who is responsible.

“Where everyone is responsible, no one is really responsible.” — Albert Bandura

Trust, Autonomy, Collaboration: Trust will disappear when people start blaming each other, and with no trust, there can be neither autonomy nor collaboration.
Stress & Burnout: The lack of trust, support, openness, collaboration, and communication among team members will turn a complex and dynamic working environment into a hostile and toxic one.
Psychological Safety & Innovation: Experimentation, risk-taking, and innovation will not be possible, as they only happen in psychologically safe environments, where people are motivated, enjoy working with each other, and trust and support each other.
Quality of Product/Service: As a result of all of the above.
Customer Service: Customers will start receiving inconsistent and confusing service or support.
Brand Image: Customers will not be happy with the service they’re receiving and will voice their opinions to anyone who asks.
Profit & Loss: All of the above will raise the costs and lower the revenue of the whole company.

📇 One View to Rule Them All

To avoid the above problems, we have to clarify upfront who does what in our processes. That means a) define it, b) agree on it, c) execute it, and d) maintain it.

The most common way of defining it is by creating a RACI Matrix.

What’s a RACI Matrix? I’m glad you asked 😉

🔍 Definitions

✅ What is RACI?

RACI comes from the first letters of the below adjectives. When it comes to processes, these adjectives carry a certain meaning:

Responsible: the one doing the task
Accountable: the one who ensures the task gets done
Consulted: the one who receives the information and provides feedback (bi-directional information flow)
Informed: the one who only receives the information (one-directional information flow)

RACI is a way to describe process roles. A role inside a process is the set of things to do, know, and be, as defined by the process.

Process roles are not job descriptions and not people. Process roles get assigned to people. This means one person can be assigned multiple process roles, just like one process role can be performed by many people.

NOTE: I will be focusing only on the RACI model. However, there are many other similar models, some of which include even more (or different) process roles (see more on Wikipedia). Nevertheless, the logic in what all these models represent, how to fill them out, and how to use them is the same.

✅ What is a RACI Matrix?

The RACI Matrix looks like this:

The rows represent the process steps and the columns represent the process roles allocated to those steps. Their cross-section shows what the process role’s exact involvement is regarding a given process step: whether that role is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed.

The above is just a template. When creating our actual RACI Matrix, we replace Step 1, 2, 3, etc. with the specific names of our process steps, adding as many rows as needed (one for each step). Similarly, we replace Role A, B, C, etc. with the names of our process roles, adding as many columns as necessary (one for each role).

TIP: In the table above, I have used a dash to indicate where no one is Consulted or Informed. Normally, these fields would be left blank. However, I prefer not to leave them blank, as it can give the impression that the RACI Matrix is incomplete, particularly when the process is still in draft form and I send it out for review.

When we start filling out the RACI Matrix, we might be tempted to list job titles instead of process roles, especially if we haven't identified specific roles needed for our process. This can be a double-edged sword:

On one hand, linking process roles to job descriptions can be very beneficial (as I will explain in Part 2).
On the other hand, using process roles instead of job titles provides flexibility, allowing us to remain independent of the organizational structure. This is crucial because when the organization undergoes restructuring (which is very likely, especially in the IT business), our defined RACI Matrix can still remain relevant. Additionally, some process roles don’t exist as job titles within the organization, such as Author, Reviewer, or Approver of documentation; Project Manager for internal projects (e.g., improvement, revamp, or innovation initiatives); Stakeholder or Subject-Matter Expert; etc. These process roles can encompass various job titles or even other process roles.

🔐 Rules for Creating a RACI Matrix

Filling out the RACI Matrix is not complicated. However, we have to consider what the implications will be in reality. Here are the rules that can serve as our guide:

Rule 1️⃣: There should be no duplication of roles per process step.

This, in other words, means the following:

1.1. Accountable and Responsible cannot be the same role.

Someone else should supervise the Responsible, guide them, and help them remove obstacles when needed. For example, if I am the Responsible, I shouldn’t be the one supervising my own work, just as I shouldn’t be the one reviewing or approving the documents, software code, etc., that I’ve created. I need another point of view (usually higher up the hierarchy) and another pair of eyes to minimize risks.

Here’s another example: Let’s imagine we are running a complex project with tight deadlines (i.e. we are the Responsible). There are too many tasks and not enough time. Even with the best intentions, we cannot do (or remember to do) everything. Who should remind us of the company’s priorities? Who should ensure we prioritize certain tasks over others? Who should keep us honest and grounded as we approach deadlines or risk missing our deliverables? Who should lobby and vouch for us and our project in front of others in the company, especially Top Management? If the answer to these questions is again us, then a) we are adding even more tasks to our already overloaded plate, and b) strictly speaking, we’ll act more responsibly if we have committed to someone else on those project deliverables, rather than if we have committed only to ourselves.

Therefore, if things go wrong and we are both the Responsible and the Accountable, the risk of failing to deliver increases. Hence, it’s always best to keep the Responsible and Accountable roles separate.

NOTE: If you’re experiencing troubles identifying the Accountable when filling out the RACI Matrix, see Rule 2 below.

1.2. Whoever is listed as Consulted doesn’t have to be listed as Informed too.

According to the definition, the Consulted role requires a bi-directional flow of information (from the Responsible to a third party and back), while the Informed role requires only a one-directional flow (from the Responsible to the third party). Therefore, if someone is being Consulted, they have already been Informed.

1.3. If someone is already Accountable or Responsible, the bi-directional information flow is assumed.

For the Responsible, this is self-evident - they don’t need to consult or inform themselves about their own tasks.

For the Accountable, though, why wouldn't we list them as Consulted or Informed? Because the Accountable must be informed - otherwise, they cannot be held accountable for things they are unaware of. And to be truly accountable, they also must have the authority to approve or adjust plans made by the Responsible. Therefore, the Accountable is inherently in an active and constant Consulted role, making it unnecessary to specify this separately.

Rule 2️⃣: There should be exactly one Accountable per process step.

This aims to ensure the process step indeed gets done. If there is no Accountable person, or more than one Accountable, the risk of things falling through the cracks increases significantly.

How should we address this issue?

2.1. No Accountable

If we cannot identify the Accountable person for a given process step, we should list as Accountable the direct manager of the person listed as Responsible (as per the organizational structure).

2.2. More than one Accountable

In this case, we probably haven’t cut out the process correctly - see Setting Boundaries in my other post for the solution.

NOTE: Some BPM colleagues argue that there should be exactly one Responsible person per process step for that same reason - to ensure the task gets done. However, I don’t think this is realistic. Often, multiple people perform the same activity within their specific domains, with one person overseeing the entire effort (e.g. Project Managers under a Program Manager, or Product Owners under a Product Manager). Therefore, I prefer having exactly one Accountable person and listing as many Responsible individuals as needed for each process step.

Rule 3️⃣: Accountable and Responsible are mandatory for each process step; Consulted and Informed are not.

In other words, there may be steps in the process where we don’t consult with or inform anyone. However, we cannot have a process step without at least one Responsible person and exactly one Accountable person.

🧐 How to Read a RACI Matrix

A RACI Matrix is, first and foremost, a matrix. We need this table view to read the information from top to bottom, as well as from left to right. Here’s why:

⬇️ Vertical View

If e.g. I’m assigned Process Role A, I can immediately see which process steps are attributed to my role and in what capacity: which steps I need to perform, ensure, provide feedback on, or simply receive information about.

NOTE: It’s always a good idea that we list all the process steps assigned to us across various processes. Ideally, this list will form our job description and/or personal objectives (see more on Personal Objectives in my other post). But even if that’s not the case, knowing all our assignments and expectations helps us better plan, prioritize, commit, negotiate deadlines, request additional resources, and more.

➡️ Horizontal View

If e.g. I’m executing Step 1 (i.e. I’m the Responsible), I can see who else needs to be involved and in what capacity.

If e.g. I’m the Process Auditor and I’m auditing Step 1, I can immediately see who is supposed to perform it, who ensures it happens, who provides feedback, and who receives information about its completion. This allows me to verify that all these activities have indeed occurred.

Lastly, if e.g. I’m a stakeholder of this process (i.e. I execute another process that depends on input from this one), I can ensure my role is listed as e.g. Informed in the RACI Matrix. This way, the Responsible person knows they need to inform me when the step is completed, allowing me to perform my dependent process optimally.

🪴 How to Implement a RACI Matrix

☝️ Defining Process Roles

As mentioned above, it might be beneficial to maintain process roles separate from organizational job descriptions. Similar to job descriptions, process roles also require a clear definition. A complete definition of a process role should encompass the following four attributes:

Responsibility: the task that needs to get done
Accountability: the ownership of (someone else’s) Responsibility
Authority: the rights (access to tools, information, people, etc.) needed to fulfill the assigned Responsibilities and Accountabilities
Competency: the skills (knowledge, experience, etc.) needed to fulfill the assigned Responsibilities, Accountabilities, and Authorities

👉 Assigning Process Roles

Competency

Once process roles are defined, they need to be assigned to individuals who will execute them. To do that, we have to match the actual skills of the people to the required Competencies for each process role. Ideally, we already have a good understanding of the skills within our team. We use this information to assign each process role to the most suitable person.

However, both the required role competencies (i.e. what’s planned) and the individual competencies (i.e. what’s actual) are not static - they evolve over time. Every process edit can trigger changes to the process roles (see more under Process Purpose in my other post). Similarly, people gain new skills or may lose existing ones. Hence, it’s crucial to continually track and update all competencies to bridge the gaps between what’s needed and what’s currently available.

Authority

Another critical aspect to monitor is the Authorities associated with process roles. There's often an assumption that assigning someone a Responsibility or Accountability automatically grants them the necessary Authority to fulfill that role. In practice, this can lead to contradictions, such as:

A Sales colleague tasked with negotiating prices lacks the authority to offer discounts.
An IT colleague has to fix the HR system but lacks the authority to view financial or other personal data.
A Quality Management colleague is responsible for meeting customer requirements but lacks the authority to review the customer contract.
Etc.

Therefore, when defining process roles, we have to carefully consider the required Authorities needed to fulfill the Responsibilities and Accountabilities. And when assigning process roles, we have to again carefully consider if we have granted all necessary Authorities to the designated individuals (or job descriptions).

🫴 Delegating Process Roles

Delegation is a common practice to increase efficiency, but it should adhere to certain principles to be effective.

Responsibility

The process role’s Responsibilities are the main thing that gets delegated. However, for effective delegation:

the accompanying Authorities must also be delegated, and
the delegate must possess the necessary Competencies for both the Responsibilities and the Authorities delegated (if they don’t, we/they have to plan to acquire these Competencies promptly) → see Competency above

Accountability

Accountability is very often tied to the organizational structure, as individuals are assigned Accountabilities based on their job descriptions and positions in the hierarchy. This gives a person the formal mandate to establish an environment that fosters the fulfillment of their team’s Responsibilities. Without such a mandate, the Accountable person cannot truly be accountable for anything because their hands are tied. However, this also means that Accountability cannot be delegated. We can delegate a task (Responsibility), but we cannot delegate the ownership of a task (Accountability).

Let’s take for example a sports team - the coach is always Accountable. No matter how each team member performs on a given day, what obstacles there are, and who is or isn’t doing their Responsibilities properly, the coach is Accountable for the overall team performance. The coach cannot delegate this Accountability to someone else, because that someone else is not the coach (as per the formal organizational structure) and, therefore, will not be recognized as the Accountable by anyone else.

Subscribe now

And that’s how we clarify the roles of everybody within our team and organization. And by doing so, we eliminate the possible confusion and establish an open, trusting, collaborative, supportive, and psychologically safe environment for everyone.

Thank you for reading 💝

See you in the next post,

Irina

BPMexplained🧩

The #1 Tool You Need for Defining Who Does…