Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
RACI should not be too detailed as it is a management tool for decision making and roles clarification.
High level activities should be listed there. There will be always "grey" areas to be clarified during execution but the basis should not be ambiguous.
I totally agree with Philippe.
I usually don't go to the activity level in my RACI. I find the work package is sufficient to capture the roles and responsibilities
Agree with the sentiments above ..... Too much detail leads to unnecessary overhead and confusion. Tell the story with less words.
KISS method works best.Keep it Simple so it will actually be used.
I agree with Liana, Stéphane, and Philippe's comments. This makes sense.
Do not make it cluttered, as mentioned by Liana you need to keep it simple. Have high level entries.
I agree with the simple and at the work package level.
- Define most of the Responsible from the Deliverables/Work packages defined
- Most of the Accountable from the milestones defined as "Sign-off", "Decision"... As well as the risks owners from risk registry or their direct managers (i.e. think about the steps you would follow in case a risk realizes)
- Most of the Consulted from Project Sponsors, Project Steering Committee, PMO, other Project related teams (e.g. Risk Team if there is any in your Organisation) and Subject Matter Experts. Consider also risk registry (who you would reach out to if a risk or an issue happens) and who should be making the decisions in your project. This one really depends on your Organization.
- Most of the Informed from above. Again, this one really depends on your Organization.
- I use groups or roles versus individual names when it makes sense, refer to Stakeholder Registry when relevant.
Hope it helps,
S.....a fee option there
Please login or join to reply