RACI Matrix Template: Agree Who Does What Before Work Starts

A RACI matrix assigns four kinds of involvement to a task: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. Use it when work crosses people or teams and you keep hearing “I thought you were doing that.” The useful result is an agreed assignment, not a beautifully filled grid.

Download the editable RACI matrix. The text file includes a blank structure, a completed example, and a review checklist. Paste it into a shared document; no account is required.

Our position is simple: a name in a cell is a proposal until that person understands and accepts the role. Otherwise, the chart makes an unconfirmed assumption look official.

What do the four letters mean?

R does the work; A is answerable for its completion. C contributes input before the work is settled; I receives the relevant update. Agree on these meanings before assigning letters, because teams often use “responsible” and “accountable” interchangeably in conversation.

Atlassian's RACI guidance recommends exactly one accountable individual per task. That gives the team a clear place to resolve disagreements. It does not mean one person must perform every activity or possess every specialist skill.

A consulted person needs an opportunity to influence the work. An informed person needs an update. Copying both groups into every discussion defeats the distinction and can turn a modest assignment into a permanent meeting.

A RACI chart also differs from a decision matrix: the latter compares options against criteria. Use that existing guide when the problem is choosing an option. Use this template when the problem is assigning the work after the outcome is understood.

What does a usable matrix look like?

Use one row per observable deliverable or activity and one column per participating role. Avoid enormous rows such as “do onboarding,” because different parts may need different owners.

Here is a fictional example for publishing a new-starter expense FAQ. Morgan writes, Casey leads operations, Lee owns expense policy, and Sam represents the support team. The six rows illustrate the format; they are not a recommended project size.

Every row has one A and at least one R. Lee has A/R for policy accuracy because Lee both performs and owns that check. Publication approval remains a separate activity: policy correctness does not automatically mean the whole document is ready to release.

The final row matters. Without it, the team may publish successfully and then spend months forwarding correction requests to the original writer. Ownership after delivery is work, too.

Add a short legend explaining what a blank cell means: no routine involvement in that activity. Blank cells are useful. Filling them merely to acknowledge everyone's importance creates obligations nobody actually needs.

Keep due dates and detailed steps in the working plan, linked beside the matrix. Repeating them in several places increases the chance that two documents disagree about the current commitment.

How do you fill it in with the team?

Agree on outcomes first, choose the accountable person, and then confirm who can do the work and whose input is necessary. Fill the chart with the affected people instead of announcing their assignments after the fact.

Start from your project brief. If the brief promises an FAQ and a working welcome-message link, the matrix must cover both. It should not quietly add a new employee portal because someone would like one.

Work through each row:

1. Name the result in language someone can check.
2. Confirm who has the authority to accept that result.
3. Ask who will perform the work and whether they have capacity.
4. Identify the expertise that must be consulted before completion.
5. Decide who needs an update and when it becomes useful.

Atlassian's roles and responsibilities exercise asks teams to discuss responsibilities and resolve gaps or overlaps. Apply that principle to the conversation: disagreement is useful evidence, not a reason to hurry through the chart.

Try this wording: “I have Morgan drafting and Casey accountable for delivery. Lee checks policy accuracy before publication. What authority, access, or time is missing for that to work?”

Then ask each named person to explain their role back in ordinary language. If Morgan expects Lee to rewrite every answer while Lee expects a quick accuracy check, the letters have hidden a real mismatch.

Confirm the final assignments during the project kickoff. Record unresolved ownership as an actual blocker; do not assign the nearest available name just to make the grid complete.

How do you spot an impossible assignment?

Read across each row for missing ownership, then down each column for overload. A locally sensible assignment can become impossible when the same person is responsible for everything happening at once.

Look for these warning signs:

• No R: everyone is watching, but nobody is doing the work.
• No A: nobody can settle whether the result is acceptable.
• Several As: final accountability is unresolved.
• Many Cs: the consultation effort may be larger than the task itself.
• One crowded column: the plan may depend on unavailable capacity.

Ask what each consulted person must provide. “Review” could mean a factual correction, legal authorization, user feedback, or a personal preference. Those are different contributions with different consequences if they arrive late.

Do not solve every bottleneck by removing reviewers. Sometimes the review is essential and the schedule is wrong. Sometimes a broad row should be split into a technical check and a publication decision. The chart helps expose that choice; it cannot make the choice for you.

The RACI guide treats the matrix as a way to clarify involvement. It is not evidence that the named people have enough time. Validate capacity separately, especially when one specialist appears across several projects.

How do you keep it useful after kickoff?

Update the agreed matrix when scope, staffing, or authority changes. Keep one current version where the team already looks for project information, with a visible owner and review date.

When someone leaves or changes roles, confirm the replacement's authority and availability. Replacing a name without a conversation transfers a label, not a workable responsibility.

Your team charter can explain how the team collaborates. The RACI chart should stay narrower: who does what for these particular outputs. Avoid making either document repeat the other in full.

Finally, turn your assigned work into a daily plan. “Responsible for FAQ” is too broad for today's calendar; “draft the travel-policy answer using Lee's approved source” is actionable.

Do Only 3 Things a Day addresses that next step: choosing concrete daily outcomes and protecting attention for them. This matrix settles ownership. The book helps you make realistic room for your share.

Frequently asked questions

Can one person be both responsible and accountable?

Yes. Use A/R when the person performs the work and is answerable for its completion. Make the combination explicit so nobody mistakes the row for missing execution ownership.

Can a task have more than one responsible person?

Yes, but clarify the contribution each person makes. If the work keeps falling between them, split the row into distinct deliverables while retaining a clear accountable owner for each.

Does every cell need a letter?

No. A blank cell can mean no routine involvement. Assigning unnecessary consultation or updates makes the chart harder to use and creates avoidable coordination work.

When is a RACI matrix unnecessary?

Skip it when ownership and approval are already obvious and stable. A short task list may be enough for one person or a small assignment with no handoffs. Use the matrix to resolve real ambiguity.