Talk:Responsibility assignment matrix

Merge proposal

The article on Responsibility assignment matrix cover the same ground as RACI matrix; so I would like to propose redirecting Responsibility assignment matrix to the appropriate section in this article. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on RASIC is even more similar to RACI matrix; so I have also proposed merging RASIC with this article. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if the merge has already happened, but sounds good to me. Showeropera (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RSI associated with Project Management Institute

I'm studying the whole PMI-PMP standard and I'm surprised to see the reference to Project Management Institute as proposing RSI. I searched all the standards and practices. I easily find RACI matrix in the Fourth Edition, but no mention to RSI. The bibliographical mention points to a curriculum from a PMI Chapter for a school project. I understand that it is an appropriate usage because teachers had to simplify the matter for the young people. However, as the Project Management Institute is working to develop standards for big and very big professional international projects, I doubt that RSI would be endorsed in those projects, because more precise roles are needed. I suggest to precise the reference to mention that it is for the young or very simplified occasions. It would be sad to remove this item, but if PMI was the only user of it, it would be better to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domroy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Domroy. I second your thoughts. If you don't feel this reference should be there then just remove it. Pm master 05:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and removed - this is a reference submitted from PMI Kansas City, as something mentioned in a course called Project Management for Kids - saved here for posterity: Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RSI

A version used by the Project Management Institute: Project Management for Kids, a course run by PMI Kansas City

Responsible

These people are the doers of the work. They must complete the task or objective or make the decision. Several people can be jointly responsible.

Sponsor

This person is the owner of the work. He or she must sign off or approve when the task, objective or decision is complete. This person must make sure that responsibilities are assigned in the matrix for all related activities. There is only one person accountable, which means that the buck stops there.

Informed

These people need to be kept in the picture. They need updates on progress or decision, but they do not need to be formally consulted, nor do they contribute directly to the task or decision.

Removing uncited variations of RACI inter alia

In undertaking a general clean-up and adding citations to remove the refimprove tag, I have identified several sections which either have no significant citations or have competing definitions. I have removed them and posted their content here with an explanation, if anyone can provide any citations for them or resolve the ambiguity, then we can always take them back into the body of the article itself. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RSI

See separate section on RSI for reasoning.

PARIS

There was only one book citation for this, with definitions for what the letters stood for that differed from this entry

Another alternative:

Primary

The role mainly responsible to complete a task

Assigned

One or more additional roles that are assigned to support the primary role

Review required

Those who should be consulted once work has been completed, e.g. checking for compliance with standards, etc.

Input required

Those who should be consulted as work is being prepared, i.e. the driving input

Signature required

Those who need to signed off on work, and are therefore the approver or accountable role

PACE

No book citations could be found for this at all

This model is used for decision making process and supports reaching decisions faster while keeping all the actors informed, by reducing the "debate time" between the actors involved:

Process Owner (or Process Leader)

One person has the Process Owner role to drive the decision making process on behalf of the Approver and is clear on that responsibility. The Process Owner is expected to bring well thought out/researched options to the Approver who will make decision regardless of consensus among all stakeholders.

Approver

The Approver decides by vetoing or choosing one of a series of well laid out options presented by the Process Owner. The Approver is expected to possess the skills and experience to make decisions that will not be overturned, and helps to mentor/coach others until they gain requisite experience to become an Approver. Only the Approver may veto all options.

Consulted

Consulted people must not attempt to veto by going to the level above to overturn a decision.

Executers

Those who carry out the decision once made. Execution with excellence is expected regardless of intellectual buy-in.

OARP

No book citations could be found for this at all

As with the other models, this model is used for designating roles in the decision making process and the supporting work, to ensure clarity of responsibility, reduced iteration in communications, and no unexpected stakeholders. It has an explicit "Owner" moniker that some find too all encompassing, as compared to the "Approver" role.

Owner

This person owns and oversees the process for decision making. The process Owner formulates a recommendation based on Reviewer and Participant input, which the Approver uses to make a final decision. They may communicate the nature of any disagreements. They conduct any post-mortem or process-oriented communication.

Approver

The Approver may initiate the process and designate the Owner. This person works with the owner to scope the decision-making purview. They handle any escalations from Reviewers, and make the final decision based on recommendation from the Owner.

Reviewer

These are affected parties who will be impacted. They can escalate directly to Approver. They must participate to have a voice.

Participant

These are often Self-selected or non-critical path input providers. This group also represents notification-only or one-way communication recipients. They can only escalate to Owner.

I totally agree. I did the same research myself, and the references are either weak or non existent. Pm master 11:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Submitter" or "Requestor"

I'm looking for a process assignment categorization system that includes a role of "submitter" or "requestor" or somesuch. I would prefer something that's compatible with a diagramming system like EPC or BPM. The point of the goal is to have a complete end-to-end chain of responsibility and action, however none of the RACI variants seem to fit (except inasmuch as "Informed" would fit the submitter, but it's not very explicit) and I can't find any other similar system that fits. I'm reticent to create an internally-used variant of my own, preferring to adhere to some sort of published standard. Does anyone here have any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdray (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

RAIDE

I have also seen RAIDE (Book definition to be found, possibly part of Kaplan's work) In the definition I have seen RAIDE stands for

• Recommender
• Approver
• Informed (Consulted)
• Decider
• Executer

With the obvious definitions for each word --193.35.250.234 (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No history paragraph

I'm searching where and when this tool has been invented.

1. The oldest Google book to mention it was in 1999.
2. ITIL has integrated it as if it was a part of it (and ITIL talks about it).
3. The Motorola Sig Sigma method did that too, and our images are categorized like that (but that's not into Six Sigma).

So, I'm not ready to create a history paragraph now. JackPotte (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in the picture

In the picture "Assigning people to facilities, there is a row "C04 Security Governance (draft)". I think there is a problem in that this row does not have an "R" in it. This means that no one is actually tasked with actually doing this item. This is a mistake in the content of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.88 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem that "R" would be mandatory. It occurs to me that the image could be replaced by a wikitable – given that it's just a text grid – and corrected in the process. Unfortunately this isn't a good time for me to do this myself, but I'll leave this thought here for future reference ... – Wdchk (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pageviews, Importance-assessed as High

This article gets an average of 2,162 pageviews a day, which is astounding. I have accordingly reassessed its Importance as High. Please improve the article, for the next million readers. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)