Beyond RACI: smarter ways to clarify ownership

RACI matrices have been the go-to accountability framework for decades. 

However, in fast-moving startups and scale-ups, RACI often creates more bureaucracy than clarity. 

While established enterprises might have the luxury of mapping out detailed responsibility charts, high-growth teams need something more agile, with frameworks that clarify ownership without grinding decision-making to a halt.

This article explores why RACI struggles in startup environments, introduces more effective frameworks like DACI and RAPID, and gives you a practical roadmap for choosing the right accountability model for your team.

You'll learn which framework suits different decision types, how to balance clarity with autonomy, and why getting ownership right is intrinsically linked to your broader equity and accountability culture.

Why RACI falls short for high-growth teams

RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) was designed for predictable, process-heavy environments. It works brilliantly when you're managing established workflows with stable teams. But startups operate differently.

The reality is that RACI implementation can spiral into endless spreadsheets and debates over role classifications, with many startups finding the process time-consuming without delivering the promised clarity. 

When your team is pivoting quarterly and everyone's wearing multiple hats, freezing roles into rigid categories becomes counterproductive.

Here's what makes RACI problematic in high-velocity environments:

• Decision paralysis through over-consultation. When too many people are marked as consulted, even minor decisions require multiple rounds of input. This slows momentum precisely when speed matters most.
• Role overlap in fluid teams. In startups, roles can change monthly or even more frequently, making it feel like no two projects are executed consistently. The person who was responsible last month might now be accountable, or both.
• False clarity. RACI gives the illusion of clear ownership, but the distinction between responsible and accountable confuses many teams. Who actually makes the final call? In practice, this ambiguity causes more conflict than resolution.
• Administrative overhead. Maintaining RACI matrices for every project and decision point becomes a full-time job. For lean teams trying to ship product, this administrative burden is unsustainable.

RACI wasn't built for speed. If your team prioritises rapid iteration over predictable processes, it's time to explore frameworks designed for agility and clarity, not consensus.

The alternatives: DACI, RAPID, and decision charters

Modern accountability frameworks flip the RACI model on its head. 

Instead of mapping every stakeholder to every task, they focus on clarifying who drives decisions and who owns outcomes. Here are three proven alternatives.

DACI: clarity on who drives the work

DACI stands for Driver, Approver, Contributor, and Informed, roles that clarify authority in specific situations. 

Originally developed by Intuit and popularised by Atlassian, DACI removes ambiguity by putting one person - the Driver - in charge of shepherding the decision forward.

• The Driver doesn't necessarily make the final call, but they coordinate inputs, schedule discussions, and ensure progress. 
• The Approver holds veto power and makes the ultimate decision. 
• Contributors provide input. 
• Informed team members  are kept in the loop.

DACI works for growing teams thanks to its focus on forward momentum. The Driver role ensures decisions don't languish in committee limbo. 

This makes it ideal for product launches, feature prioritisation, and cross-functional initiatives where accountability tends to blur.

RAPID: built for complex, multi-stakeholder decisions

Developed by Bain & Company, RAPID clarifies five roles: Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide. 

Unlike RACI's focus on tasks, RAPID centres entirely on decision-making.

The genius of RAPID is separating ‘Input’ from ‘Agree.’ Input providers share perspectives but don't hold veto power. 

Those with agree rights must sign off before the decision moves forward, a crucial distinction that prevents bottlenecks. 

One person holds the ‘Decide’ role and breaks ties when consensus can't be reached.

RAPID excels in organisational decisions with broad impact: budget allocation, strategic pivots, major hires, or partnership agreements. 

It reduces ambiguity and streamlines the decision-making process by providing transparency on decision accountabilities.

Decision charters: maximum flexibility for evolving teams

If frameworks feel too rigid, decision charters offer a lightweight alternative. 

Rather than mapping every decision through a formal matrix, you create simple one-page documents for significant decisions that outline:

• What decision needs to be made
• Who owns the final call
• Who must be consulted (and by when)
• Who should be informed after the decision
• What success looks like

Decision charters work exceptionally well for one-off strategic calls or rapidly evolving situations where roles haven't stabilised. 

They give teams the structure they need without the overhead of maintaining comprehensive matrices.

DACI prioritises momentum, RAPID handles complexity, and decision charters offer flexibility. 

Choose based on your team's maturity, decision type, and how much structure you actually need.

How to choose the right framework for your team

There's no universal best approach, so the right framework depends on your team's size, decision complexity, and culture. 

Here's a practical decision tree to guide your choice.

Start with these questions:

• Does your team struggle more with speed or with stakeholder alignment? If speed is the bottleneck, lean toward DACI or decision charters. If stakeholder conflict is the issue, RAPID's structured input and agreement roles provide better guardrails.
• How stable are your roles and team structure? Highly fluid teams (typical in early-stage startups) benefit from lightweight decision charters that can evolve quickly. More established teams with defined functions can sustain DACI or RAPID.
• What types of decisions are slowing you down? Product and operational decisions often suit DACI. Strategic or cross-functional decisions with multiple veto points benefit from RAPID's clarity on who can block progress.

When to use each approach

Use DACI when you need one person to drive a project forward, especially for product development, marketing campaigns, or initiatives requiring cross-team coordination. The Driver role prevents decisions from drifting.

Use RAPID for high-stakes decisions with multiple stakeholders, such as funding rounds, organisational restructures, strategic partnerships. 

The clear separation of Input, Agree, and Decide prevents endless consensus-seeking.

Use decision charters for one-time strategic choices or when you're still figuring out your team structure. They're perfect for early-stage companies or teams experiencing rapid change.

Don't use any formal framework if your team is under 10 people and everyone sits in the same room. Over-formalising accountability in small, tight-knit teams creates unnecessary friction.

Testing and iterating your approach

Whatever framework you choose, treat it as an experiment. Roll it out for two or three significant decisions, then gather feedback. 

Ask your team:

• Did this make decision-making faster or slower?
• Was accountability clearer?
• Did anyone feel unnecessarily bottlenecked?
• Would we use this again?

Be willing to adapt. You might start with DACI and discover certain decision types need RAPID's structure, or vice versa. 

The goal is finding the most effective outcomes, so match your framework to your team's reality, not to what sounds impressive. 

The best accountability model is the one your team will actually use consistently.

Balancing accountability with autonomy

The paradox of accountability frameworks is that you implement them to create clarity, but if you're not careful, they suffocate the very autonomy that drives innovation. 

The trick is using frameworks to eliminate ambiguity on ownership without micromanaging how people work.

Effective accountability is about confidence rather than control. When someone knows they own a decision, they move faster and take smarter risks. 

When ownership is murky, people default to consensus-seeking or avoidance.

How to maintain autonomy within clear accountability

• Define decision boundaries, not processes. Tell people what decisions they own and what constraints exist (budget, timeline, strategic goals), but don't prescribe how they arrive at conclusions. Trust competent people to figure out the "how."
• Separate decision-making from information-gathering. Just because someone's Informed or provides Input doesn't mean they're involved in the deliberation. Gathering perspectives is valuable; turning every decision into a committee vote is not.
• Empower Drivers and Deciders to say no to input. One of the most liberating aspects of DACI and RAPID is giving owners explicit permission to acknowledge input without being bound by it. This protects against design by committee outcomes.
• Build a culture of ‘disagree and commit.’ Amazon famously encourages leaders to voice disagreement during the decision process but fully commit once a decision is made. Accountability frameworks should reinforce this, with clarity on who decides followed by unified execution.

Connecting accountability to ownership culture

Here's where accountability frameworks intersect powerfully with equity and ownership culture. 

Shared ownership aligns interests. When team members are also owners, clarity about who drives decisions and who owns outcomes reinforces the broader ownership mindset. 

Everyone understands that decisions have consequences for the business they collectively own.

Conversely, muddled accountability undermines ownership culture. If people hold equity but can't clearly see how decisions get made or who's accountable for results, ownership feels abstract rather than tangible. 

Getting decision-making frameworks right is part of building a true ownership culture, not separate from it.

Accountability without autonomy breeds bureaucracy. Autonomy without accountability creates chaos. The right framework gives you both.

Practical implementation tips

Even the best framework fails if your team doesn't consistently use it. Here's how to embed accountability clarity into your team's operating rhythm.

Start small and specific. Don't roll out a comprehensive framework overnight. Pick a few  recurring decision types that currently cause friction

These may be hiring approvals, feature prioritisation, budget allocation—and apply your chosen framework only to those. Prove the value before scaling.

Document decisions, not just frameworks. Create a shared log where Drivers, Deciders, or decision charter owners record what was decided, when, and why. This creates institutional memory and prevents relitigating settled questions.

Make frameworks visible. Put DACI or RAPID roles directly in project briefs, meeting agendas, and planning documents. If people have to hunt for who owns what, they won't use the framework consistently.

Review and adjust quarterly. As your team grows and evolves, decision-making needs change. Schedule quarterly check-ins to assess whether your chosen approach still serves you. Be ruthless about abandoning frameworks that add friction rather than removing it.

Connect accountability to outcomes. When a decision made through your framework succeeds (or fails), call it out. 

Clarity beats complexity

RACI isn't inherently broken, it's just designed for a different era and a different pace. 

High-growth teams need accountability frameworks that match their velocity: DACI for project momentum, RAPID for complex stakeholder decisions, or lightweight decision charters for maximum flexibility.

The goal is to choose the right clarity tool for your team's specific context. Start with your biggest decision-making pain points, experiment with a framework that addresses them, and iterate based on real results.

Accountability frameworks aren't just operational tools. When combined with meaningful equity and ownership culture, they reinforce the idea that everyone has a genuine stake and genuine responsibility in the company's success.

Your next step 

Identify one recurring decision that consistently causes confusion or delay in your team. 

Choose DACI, RAPID, or a decision charter to clarify ownership for that decision type. 

Test it for a month, gather feedback, and decide whether to expand, adjust, or try something different. Clarity is built through action, not planning.