Talk:Responsibility assignment matrix

The final sentence of the Methodology section mentions a "Variations" section but there is not one present. Suggest removing this part for the timebeing to avoid confusion. If someone has variations on the definitions, they can add them later on.

Versions and Category

I added the Versions information in from the page history and added the category back to the page. For the individual who removed that information, if you feel that it does not belong with this page information please give a reason. The version information is valuable and the Category of Project Management is appropriate. Thanks. JOE-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.90.35.11 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A is for Approver?

I got some feedback that A is for Approver. ?? --64.214.85.60 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--12.10.219.38 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC) In essence, the original scheme has a single "Accountable" but can have several "Responsible"; this can cause confusion over the difference betwween definitions. Changing "Accountable" to "Approver" helps to clarify that. However, the alternative scheme defined here removes the two-tier responsibility at the task level and specifies that, for each task, one person is responsible for its execution; they may be assisted by others and will need to communicate (two-way "Consultation" and one-way "Inform"). Where a higher authority is needed to approve a task, that is added as a subsequent task where approver/authority is "Responsible". It may sound cumbersome but, if applied consistently, it works well.Steve @ Aberdeen <>< (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To remove the problem of A meaning Accountable and R meaning Responsible, which can cause confusion. Have you heard of the alternative system ADICO? A= Accountable (accountable for the completion of the activities, able to commit resources for completion), D= Does it (actually does the work), I= Informed(one way conversation), C= Consulted (2 way conversation), 0= zero or not required for the activity.Fredsocks (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not heard of this one before. If you can find some references for it, you should include it. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approvers and those Accountable for ensuring an activity is completed are not synonymous. For example, the Project Manager is tasked with ensuring the project and all artifacts within it are completed and approved. In the case of approver, three could be many that need to sign-off and they are most likely cross departmental. For example, the project manager is "Accountable" for ensuring a requirements document is created and approved by all required stakeholders--One of which is the Project Business Sponsor. Other approvers might include VP Marketing, CFO, Legal etc... and therefore you would not list all of them in the RACI since only one role gets the "A". User:Goldy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.147.177 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the move to have articles on fully articulated titles (not the abbreviations), perhaps the main articles should be the Responsibility assignment matrix itself, with the RACI matrix being the first/main example, followed by all the other variations. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO -- most people are familiar with the term RACI and will search on it. I go so far as to say that searching on RACI should go to the disambiguation page (as it does now), but that if one enters "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACI" rather than going to the disambiguation page that should be redirected right here. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, because even if we make the main article Responsibility assignment matrix, the RACI matrix will still redirect there. However, it's not possible to have RACI in the URL go to one place while RACI entered in the search box go somewhere else. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has now been proposed for two months, with some agreement and no disagreement. The merge will now be requested for the coming week. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.