Governance That Blocks Progress

The RACI model — Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed — was created to bring role clarity to complex projects. But in modern organizations, particularly those navigating innovation, digital transformation, or strategic initiatives, it often has the opposite effect: it introduces confusion, slows progress, and embeds shadow vetoes.

Worse still, RACI disempowers the very executives it’s meant to support. By separating accountability from authority, embedding informal veto points in the name of consultation, and distributing responsibility without granting decision rights, RACI can make even senior leaders feel like process managers rather than outcome owners. It fosters caution over courage, consensus over clarity, and bureaucracy over boldness.

At its core, RACI assumes good faith, clear lines of authority, and efficient decision-making. But in practice, especially in politicised or siloed organizations, it can lead to blurred responsibility, hidden power dynamics, and performative accountability.

Three Core Problems in Traditional Governance Models

1. Responsibility Without Authority

RACI separates “Responsible” (those who execute) from “Accountable” (those who approve), intending to create focus. But this split often creates delivery risk:

• Executors are asked to achieve ambitious targets but they lack decision rights: they cannot approve budgets, access key people, or redirect strategy midstream.
• Approvers sign off but are often disconnected from operational realities and may delay decisions without consequence.

Example 1: Innovation Team with No Budget Control

A digital team is tasked with designing a new product. They’re “Responsible” but need external research to validate user demand. The CDO (Accountable) refuses to release funding, saying, “Prove the market first.” Without data, they can’t build the business case. No funding means no progress and yet, they’re still blamed for lack of traction.

Example 2: Transformation Lead Without Staffing Rights

A transformation lead is asked to implement a cross-functional change program. However, departmental heads resist assigning staff to the initiative. The transformation lead can’t escalate effectively yet is still held responsible for progress.

When accountability is disbursed without power, execution becomes performative and political.

2. Micro-management Masquerading as Inclusion

RACI assigns “Consulted” and “Informed” to people who don’t own the decision or the work but still want a say or visibility. This often leads to:

• Endless feedback cycles.
• Stakeholders viewing non-incorporation of input as rejection.
• Delivery teams spending time “managing the room” instead of executing.

In high-context cultures (often Eastern) being “consulted” implies your opinion will shape the outcome. In Western settings it is often just a courtesy. When models mix both interpretations it creates diplomatic landmines.

Worse, RACI makes project teams responsible for keeping everyone informed. But visibility is a governance function and not a delivery burden.

The more inclusive RACI tries to be the more it diffuses ownership and slows progress.

3. No Distinction Between Exploration and Execution

RACI applies the same governance structure across all phases of a project. But innovation and strategy require different levels of commitment and oversight at different stages:

• Exploration phase: Teams need a mandate to explore, gather data, and shape options.
• Execution phase: Organizations must commit capital and operationalise.

If this difference isn’t recognised then innovation dies in two ways:

• Premature scrutiny: Executives ask for polished business cases before exploration has even started.
• Withholding resources: Decision-makers hesitate to fund the learning process as they expect answers first.

Exploration requires freedom within a boundary. RACI rarely provides it.

A New Governance Model: Clean, Clear, and Capable

This revised model aligns roles with decision rights, execution responsibility, and stage-appropriate authority without micromanagement.

Core Roles

Role	Description
A – Approver & Accountable	Owns the outcome. Approves both development and execution phases. Responsible for risk and success.
E – Executor & Responsible	Delivers the work. Must be given operational authority within scope. Accountable for delivery only once the plan is approved.
B – Business Innovator	Shapes the proposal. Explores the opportunity, engages stakeholders, collects data, tests feasibility. May or may not lead execution.

What’s Missing: Consulted and Informed

We deliberately remove these roles from the model:

• Consulted can be a veto masquerading as input.
• Informed offloads enterprise communication onto delivery teams.

Information flow is the job of governance, not execution.

Who Manages Visibility? ExCo and Governance Forums

Instead of assigning the burden of communication and buy-in to delivery teams, place it where it belongs:

• ExCo or Steering Committee
• Strategy / Transformation Office
• Program Management Office (PMO)

These functions should:

• Track progress and interdependencies
• Structure enterprise updates
• Mediate feedback without slowing execution

When ExCo informs. That’s leadership. When delivery teams inform, it’s self-defense.

Split Approvals: Exploration ≠ Execution

Phase	Authority Given	Approved By
Exploration	Budget + Time to Explore	CEO / Functional Head / Steering Committee
Execution	Launch Mandate, Full Budget	CEO / Board

By splitting approvals into two we unlock:

• Empowerment of Business Innovators without over-committing
• Control for Approvers without stalling progress
• Faster learning cycles without risking large-scale failure

This respects both innovation and governance without turning them into enemies.

Summary: What This Model Improves

Old Problem (RACI)	New Model Fix
Accountability without resources	Only Approvers can delay so they must be answerable for outcomes
Innovation teams micromanaged by feedback loops	No Consulted / Informed roles; input is routed through governance
Confusion between exploring and executing	Clear phase-based approval structure
Information asymmetry	ExCo is accountable for sharing, not the delivery team

Final Thought

We don’t need more categories or meetings. We need decision clarity.

We don’t need more opinions. We need empowered action.

And we don’t need delivery teams playing politics. We need them creating value.

This model helps rewire governance for the realities of today’s strategy and innovation cycles where ideas are fragile, speed matters, and power without ownership is the enemy of progress.