RACI matrix breakdown

[penfold]

We are currently updating our SOP and without going into detail we want to add a RACI matrix. The way I understand this is that the teams involved in our process should be included in the RACI matrix so it can be easily identifiable who is responsible etc for each task. However, the request I got was to add the roles within our team into this RACI. I questioned this and got 2 different answers.

 

My opinion is this. The RACI is there to identify the teams involved in the process and their role. If specific tasks are assigned to roles within that team, it will be identified by the job description for that person. If we want to put roles within the team into a RACI matrix, this seems more like an internal document.

 

Thoughts? Should a RACI in an SOP include specific roles within our team, or just reference the teams involved in the tasks we perform?

 

Or am I just over thinking it:getmecoat:

[dmj]

Thoughts? Should a RACI in an SOP include specific roles within our team, or just reference the teams involved in the tasks we perform?

 

 

We don't tend to do RACI for SOP's, because they are literally standard procedures, so they've already been authorised and are well understood.

We do have RACI for changes that are NOT SOP's, in which case it's the team that proposed the change is responsible, the service owner is accountable, developers/architects/testing engineers are consulted and anyone else is informed.

[steve]

We tend to only have RACIs in our service definitions. And then we identify the team for each task (e.g. service desk responsible for first line support). But I guess it depends on your scale, how many teams / roles there are? What's the churn like for role descriptions / team structures? How well are you cross skilled?

[penfold]

This was actually my first question - is this needed in an SOP or should be in a separate document. But I was quickly told this needed to be added into the SOP. We have agreed on using teams not specific roles. Seems there was some "communication breakdown" for what was actually asked.

 

Thanks all!

[dmj]

This was actually my first question - is this needed in an SOP or should be in a separate document. But I was quickly told this needed to be added into the SOP. We have agreed on using teams not specific roles. Seems there was some "communication breakdown" for what was actually asked.

 

Thanks all!

 

I don't think it's necessary, but It might be useful if you regularly need to get another team involved in a change, or to be clear who to direct comms to (and who is sending the comms). Full blown RACI might be OTT.