Roles and Responsibilities: Creating a RACI Matrix That Everyone Can Get Behind

If you’ve ever heard someone say, “I thought you were handling it,” you’ve already experienced the problem a RACI matrix solves.

The RACI matrix is a simple framework that defines who does what in a project.

RACI stands for:

  • R. Responsible. The person who completes the work.
  • A. Accountable. The person who owns the outcome and makes the final decision. very task should have only one accountable person.
  • C. Consulted. The people whose input is needed before decisions are made.
  • I. Informed. The people who need updates on progress or completion.

Here’s a simple example.

Task: Launch a new feature.

  • Responsible: Engineering Lead.
  • Acountable: Product Manager.
  • Consulted: UX Designer and Security Team.
  • Informed: Sales and Customer Success.

Without clear ownership, projects slow down. Decisions get delayed. Work gets duplicated. Important tasks fall through the cracks. A RACI matrix creates clarity before the work begins. Everyone understands their role, who makes decisions, and who needs to stay informed.

Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM)

The classic RACI matrix assigns responsibilities to individual tasks. It is an effective way to clarify ownership for specific activities, but it was never intended to define how an organization governs its projects. As projects evolve, tasks are constantly added, modified, divided, or removed, making task based responsibility matrices difficult to maintain. They often require continuous updates just to remain relevant.

The Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM) takes a different approach. Instead of assigning responsibilities to tasks, it assigns them to the project’s major deliverables. This is one of the most significant differences between the two approaches.

Major deliverables represent the tangible outcomes the project has committed to producing. Unlike tasks, which naturally change throughout the project lifecycle, major deliverables remain relatively stable. By assigning responsibility at the deliverable level, the matrix remains relevant even as detailed work plans evolve. It shifts the focus from completing activities to delivering business results.

Our matrix is not intended to assign work packages or manage resources. Those belong in the project schedule and resource plan. Its purpose is to define ownership, authority, oversight, consultation, communication, and approval for each major deliverable.

This approach provides another important advantage. Because most projects of the same type produce a similar set of major deliverables, the matrix can become an organizational standard rather than a one time project document.

Organizations can develop a standard Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM) for each project type and use it repeatedly across future projects. When a new project begins, the project manager starts with the organization’s standard matrix and makes only the adjustments required for that specific project. In most cases, only a few deliverables, players, or responsibility assignments need to be fine tuned.

This transforms the RACI matrix into an organizational procedure that captures best practices and promotes consistent governance across projects. Every similar project begins with a proven responsibility model instead of creating one from scratch. The result is faster project initiation, greater consistency, clearer accountability, and reduced planning effort.

Developing the DOM: How to create the matrix

The first column of the matrix lists the project’s major deliverables.

The remaining columns list all the project players. A player is anyone who has a role in the project, whether they belong to the project team or not. Identifying these players requires a thorough understanding of the project’s environment so that no important stakeholder remains unnoticed.

Instead of four involvement codes, the Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM) uses six, providing greater clarity and stronger governance for complex projects.

1. Execution Responsibility

This role owns the delivery of the deliverable.

The person may perform the work personally or delegate it to others. Delegating execution never transfers responsibility. They remain fully accountable for ensuring the deliverable is completed successfully.

In practice, this combines the traditional Responsible and Accountable roles into a single point of ownership. Every deliverable must have one, and only one, Execution Responsible person.

We call this the “One Hat Principle.” Every deliverable has exactly one owner. If everyone owns it, no one owns it.

This role monitors execution and verifies that the deliverable meets the required standards.

Unlike the traditional RACI model, we believe independent oversight is essential for successful projects.

Every deliverable should have at least one Control Responsible player, and that player should never be the same individual responsible for execution. Separating execution from oversight strengthens governance, improves quality, and reduces risk.

These players must be consulted before important decisions are made.

Consultation is mandatory, but the Execution Responsible player retains ownership of the final decision and remains accountable for the outcome.

Because mandatory consultation introduces coordination overhead, assign this role only where it genuinely adds value.

Consultation is recommended but optional.

The Execution Responsible player decides whether consultation is appropriate based on the circumstances. This role encourages collaboration without introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

Keep the list of optional consultants short. Too many opinions often slow decision making instead of improving it.

These players must receive relevant updates throughout the development of the deliverable.

Informing someone means more than copying them on an email. The Execution Responsible player must ensure that the information reaches the intended recipients and is properly understood.

This code can also reinforce the previous one. If consultation is not required, keeping the player informed may still be essential.

Many deliverables require formal acceptance before they are considered complete.

Those approval authorities should be explicitly identified in the matrix.

A player may participate throughout the development process and still retain the authority to approve or reject the final deliverable.

Understanding the Hierarchy

  • The six involvement codes form a hierarchy.
  • Each code implicitly includes the authority, involvement, and responsibilities of the codes below it. Therefore, a player should normally be assigned only the highest applicable code for a given deliverable. Assigning multiple codes to the same player usually adds redundancy without providing additional value.
  • The primary exception is Final Approval (Code 6), which represents a separate authority rather than another level of involvement. A player may therefore hold Final Approval in addition to any other code.
  • Another useful exception is combining Should Be Consulted (Code 4) with Must Be Informed (Code 5). This combination means that the Execution Responsible player should consult with that stakeholder whenever appropriate. If consultation does not take place, they must at least ensure the stakeholder is informed. This provides flexibility while guaranteeing that the stakeholder remains involved.
  • For example, a player assigned Control Responsibility (Code 2) is already actively involved throughout execution and therefore does not also need a Must Be Consulted (Code 3) designation. Likewise, a player assigned Must Be Consulted (Code 3) does not also need a Must Be Informed (Code 5) designation, since consultation naturally includes communication.
  • As a general rule, assign only the highest applicable code to each player, unless one of these specific exceptions applies. This keeps the matrix simple, avoids redundancy, and makes responsibilities easier to understand and maintain.

Important Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM) Guidelines

Regardless of the project, several principles should always guide the development of the matrix.

  • Develop the matrix together with the key players. When stakeholders participate in defining responsibilities, they better understand what is expected of them and are more committed to fulfilling their role.
  • Assign one and only one Execution Responsible player to every deliverable.
  • Assign at least one independent Control Responsible player whenever appropriate. Oversight should never be performed by the same person responsible for execution.
  • Keep the matrix lean. Every additional consultation, approval, or notification creates coordination effort. Include only the players who genuinely contribute to the successful delivery of the project.
  • Review the matrix by rows to ensure every deliverable has clear ownership and appropriate governance.
  • Then review it by columns to ensure responsibilities are distributed realistically. If one player owns almost every deliverable while others have little involvement, the project is likely to suffer from bottlenecks and overloaded decision makers.
  • Once the matrix has been developed for a particular type of project, preserve it as part of the organization’s project management methodology. Future projects should reuse it as the default responsibility model, making only the adjustments required by their unique characteristics. Over time, the matrix becomes an organizational knowledge asset that captures experience, standardizes governance, and continuously improves project execution.

The Methodology of Early Ownership

Projects rarely fail because people are unwilling to contribute. They fail because responsibilities are unclear.

One of the project manager’s most important responsibilities is to define ownership early and communicate it clearly. A well designed Deliverable Ownership Matrix (DOM) transforms assumptions into shared understanding, creates accountability for every major deliverable, and establishes a repeatable governance model that can serve the organization across many future projects.