DACI vs. RACI: Challenges in Implementation

Share

Summary

Are you struggling to determine whether DACI or RACI is the right model for your organization’s efforts? This blog dives into the challenges our clients have faced when implementing these models, helping you understand where each excels and where they might fall short. If you're looking to clarify roles and streamline decision-making in your projects, this blog will help you match your unique challenges to the right model.

By Sarah Threet, Marketing Consultant at Heinz Marketing 

 

At Heinz Marketing, one of our specialties is marketing orchestration: defining the process of go-to-market. One of the aspects of marketing orchestration is defining the roles and responsibilities of all involved in the go-to-market process. For our clients, we have had the opportunity to implement both DACIs and RACIs. You can read more about the differences between these two models in our Engagement Manager, Tom Swanson’s blog, DACI vs. RACI; this blog is a continuation of that topic where I will discuss the implementation challenges of both models. 

 

Challenges 

While both RACI and DACI models aim to clarify roles and responsibilities in decision-making processes, they differ in emphasis and structure, leading to distinct challenges for each. 

Challenges Specific to RACI: 

Ambiguity Between “Responsible” and “Accountable” 

In RACI, confusion can arise between the “Responsible” and “Accountable” roles. Teams might struggle with differentiating the two, particularly in complex projects where multiple individuals may take responsibility for specific tasks but there’s a single accountability figure. This can create ambiguity over who has the final authority versus who actually performs the work. Generally, the “Accountable” role is the contributor in charge of the project who is accountable to its launch and success.  

Overcomplicating with Multiple “Consulted” Roles 

A common challenge with RACI is when too many people are assigned the “Consulted” role. This often leads to decision delays or confusion, as consulting too many stakeholders might slow down the process or cause conflicting input, leading to analysis paralysis. It’s important to minimize the number of Consulted individuals per step, and it is equally as important to have a structured review process with boundaries for what aspects to review or consult on, and how long each of those steps should take. 

Difficulty Ensuring Alignment on “Informed” 

Ensuring that everyone in the “Informed” category is actually updated without being overwhelmed can be difficult. It can create a communication burden as there’s no clear mechanism for prioritizing what level of information different stakeholders require. When developing the RACI, check in with each person who should likely be informed and get their input on if they feel it is a need and how they would prefer to be informed (keeping in alignment with established communication processes to not create silos). 

Rigid Role Assignments 

RACI roles can sometimes be too rigid in fast-moving, agile environments. Since decisions might need to be made quickly, adhering to a strict RACI structure may slow things down or limit necessary collaboration across boundaries. Flexibility can be built into the workflow with a separate workflow that accommodates one-off projects, and a prioritization model should be developed so that leadership and operations can coordinate on what current projects to deprioritize to launch agile campaigns.  

Project and Process Misfit 

Some teams may find that RACI doesn’t suit their workflow, particularly for projects that require rapid decision-making or creative problem-solving. Its binary roles (“Responsible” vs. “Consulted”) might not allow for the fluid collaboration that’s necessary in more dynamic or iterative project environments. One way to handle this is by ensuring that there are mandatory touch points throughout the workflow that allow for this collaboration and communication. 

 

Heinz Marketing Scorecard

Challenges Specific to DACI: 

Driver vs. Approver Confusion and Bottlenecks 

One of the main challenges with DACI is distinguishing between the “Driver” (who leads the work) and the “Approver” (who gives the final yes/no). In some cases, this distinction can create tension between those leading the project and those who ultimately have authority. The Driver may feel they lack the autonomy to execute tasks without constant oversight. Frequently, the Approver may also create bottlenecks in the workflow by taking too long during review or wanting to backpedal on previous decisions. Developing a review process with strict decision gates and timelines may alleviate this challenge. 

Overuse of the “Contributor” Role 

Similar to the “Consulted” role in RACI, too many Contributors in DACI can lead to an excess of opinions and suggestions, which may overwhelm the Driver and slow down decision-making. It can also lead to confusion over whose input is crucial and whose is optional. Since there is not a “Consulted” role in the DACI, there would be steps built in the workflow where someone would be consulted, and they would be listed as a “Contributor” for the purpose of consulting on that step. Like RACI, limit the number of contributors in each consulted step. 

Less Focus on Task Ownership 

While DACI emphasizes decision-making, it’s less explicit about task ownership compared to RACI. The role of the “Driver” implies leadership, but there’s less clarity about which individual(s) are responsible for carrying out the tasks day-to-day. This lack of clarity may result in gaps in task execution or missed deadlines. Think of the “Driver” as someone who is taking the project from start to finish; they are still accountable for ensuring that everyone meets deadlines and for the success of the project. Being accountable to meeting deadlines would mean that the “Driver” needs to reach out to a “Contributor’s” manager should that role be creating bottlenecks. 

Overemphasis on Decision-Making Roles 

DACI is decision-centric, so organizations that adopt it might overemphasize decision-making structures at the cost of operational clarity. This focus might reduce attention on who is actually accountable for the daily implementation of tasks and could lead to fragmentation between decision-making and execution. Remember that the “Contributor’s” assigned at each task step are similar to the “Responsible” in the RACI and are responsible for completing the task, whereas the decision-making would be done by the “Driver” and anyone they need approval from. 

 

Key Differences in RACI vs DACI Challenges 

Decision-Making Focus: DACI revolves more around decision-making roles, while RACI emphasizes task execution and oversight. As a result, DACI can suffer from bottlenecks at the decision-making level (Approver), whereas RACI might face confusion in accountability (Responsible vs. Accountable) or role overload (too many Consulted/Informed). 

Execution vs. Decision Balance: RACI tends to be better for clarifying who does the work (Responsible), while DACI is stronger for clarifying who makes the decision (Approver). However, DACI might lead to a disconnect between decision-makers and implementers, while RACI may become too bureaucratic in consulting roles, slowing down processes. 

Clarity in Agile vs. Traditional Environments: RACI might struggle in fast-paced or highly collaborative environments due to its rigidity in role assignment, whereas DACI might be better suited for dynamic teams because it emphasizes fluid decision-making. However, DACI can also cause frustration in situations where decision approval delays progress. 

 

When to use RACI vs DACI? 

From our experience implementing both RACIs and DACIs with clients, we have found that when there is a discrete end, it is easier to build out steps using a RACI. It can also be easier for cross-functionality.  

  • An example of this might be a marketing campaign where various teams are responsible for specific deliverables (e.g., content creation, design, ad placement). In cross-functional projects, there can be so many responsible parties that it can be difficult to track when individual contributors enter the workflow. RACI ensures everyone understands their role and accountability across the different stages, keeping execution efficient and on track. 

However, when the project is more abstract, with no defined end, and there is a process owner, a DACI may be more appropriate. It is also clearer in the language of the DACI vs the RACI that the “Driver” is the accountable person to the project, because they are “driving” the project forward. DACI may also be more appropriate for projects that require more agility.  

  • An example of when best to use a DACI may be a product launch wherein various teams (product, marketing, finance) need to provide input, where the product manager is the Driver, the VP of Product is the Approver, and contributors from different teams weigh in on specific aspects of the decision (e.g., pricing, messaging). This structure ensures decision-making moves forward without unnecessary delays. 

Use RACI when: 

  • The project focuses on task execution and accountability. 
  • You need to ensure clear ownership and delineation of who’s doing the work. 
  • The project involves a sequential or linear workflow. 
  • Multiple people are involved in execution rather than making decisions. 
  • The project requires oversight and detailed management. 

Use DACI when: 

  • The project revolves around decision-making and approval processes. 
  • Input is needed from multiple stakeholders, but decision authority must be streamlined. 
  • The environment is dynamic and collaborative. 
  • Clear drivers and approvers need to be established for decisions to progress smoothly. 
  • The project needs an agile approach to decision-making. 

Summary 

In summary, RACI may be better for clarifying work ownership and responsibilities, while DACI may excel in clarifying decision-making roles and processes 

Ultimately, what matters the most is that everyone is aligned to committing to the chosen model, understanding their role, and testing the process from start to finish. There will always be hiccups, but it will be impossible to know for sure what worked and what to optimize if the process is not followed end-to-end and provided an appropriate post-mortem with Operations. 

If you would like assistance in better understanding which model to use for your organization, or if you would like support in implementing processes that create boundaries around your go to market orchestration, please email our orchestration specialist.