RACI, DACI, and RAPID are role-assignment frameworks that answer the question "who does what, and who decides?" RACI assigns responsibility for tasks: Responsible (does the work), Accountable (owns the outcome), Consulted (gives input), Informed (kept updated). DACI, popularized by Atlassian, is decision-specific: one Driver, one Approver, Contributors, and those Informed. RAPID, from Bain & Company, separates five decision rights — Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide — for complex, cross-functional decisions where authority is spread across groups. All three define WHO decides; none captures WHY a decision was made. Argumentree captures the reasoning behind the decision as a structured pro/con argument map, so the framework records who decided and the argument map records why.
Three frameworks for assigning decision roles — who does what, and who decides. Here is how RACI, DACI, and RAPID differ, and how to pick one.
RACI, DACI, and RAPID are all decision-role frameworks: they answer "who is responsible, and who decides?" by giving each participant a labelled role. They are not tools or methodologies for reaching a decision — they are conventions for making accountability explicit so a decision doesn't stall on "I thought you were handling that." The three differ in scope: RACI maps responsibility across a whole piece of work, DACI clarifies one group decision, and RAPID allocates decision rights when authority is spread across many stakeholders.
RACI is the oldest and broadest of the three. For each task in a project it assigns four roles:
Worked example — launching a new pricing page. The web developer is Responsible for building it, the Head of Product is Accountable for the outcome, Finance and Legal are Consulted on the numbers and terms, and the wider sales team is Informed once it ships. RACI here clarifies the whole workflow, not just one decision.
DACI, popularized by Atlassian, is purpose-built for making a single decision cleanly. It assigns four roles:
Worked example — choosing an analytics vendor. A product manager is the Driver who runs the evaluation, the VP of Engineering is the Approver who picks the winner, engineers and data analysts are Contributors who score the options, and the rest of the company is Informed of the choice. One driver, one approver — no ambiguity about who decides.
RAPID, developed by Bain & Company, is designed for bigger, cross-functional decisions where authority is genuinely spread across several groups. Its five letters are decision rights, and — a common point of confusion — they are not meant to be performed in that order (the acronym is a memory aid, not a sequence):
Worked example — entering a new regional market. The regional GM Recommends the expansion, Legal and Finance must Agree before it proceeds, Sales and Operations will Perform the rollout, Marketing and Support provide Input, and the COO holds the Decide right. RAPID makes the veto points and the single decider explicit, which is exactly what tends to be murky in a cross-functional call.
| RACI | DACI | RAPID | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roles | Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed | Driver, Approver, Contributors, Informed | Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide |
| Primary purpose | Assign task responsibility across work | Clarify a single group decision | Allocate decision rights on complex decisions |
| Best for | Projects, processes, hand-offs | Recurring team decisions | Cross-functional, high-stakes calls |
| Team size | Any (scales to large projects) | Small to mid-size teams | Larger orgs / multiple stakeholders |
| Decision type | Operational / responsibility mapping | Focused, day-to-day decisions | Ambiguous, contested authority |
| Origin | Project & process management | Popularized by Atlassian | Bain & Company |
RACI, DACI, and RAPID all answer the same underlying question — who holds each role in a decision. What none of them captures is why the decision was actually made: the arguments for and against, the evidence that was weighed, the objections that were overruled and on what grounds. Six months later the role chart tells you the COO decided; it does not tell you why the COO chose Option B over Option A, so the reasoning has to be reconstructed from memory or lost.
Argumentree captures the reasoning behind the decision as a structured pro/con argument map — every claim linked to the evidence and counterarguments for and against it, scored by the group. Pair it with any of these frameworks and you get both halves: the framework says who decided, and the argument map records why.
See what is a decision audit trail and the decision log template.
RACI assigns responsibility for the tasks in a piece of work — who is Responsible (does it), Accountable (owns the outcome), Consulted (gives input), and Informed (kept in the loop). DACI is narrower and decision-specific: it names one Driver who moves the decision forward, one Approver who makes the final call, the Contributors who provide expertise, and who is Informed of the result. In short, RACI clarifies who does the work across a project, while DACI clarifies who decides a single question.
RAPID (from Bain & Company) suits complex, high-stakes, or cross-functional decisions where authority is genuinely spread across several groups and it is unclear who gets to decide. It separates five decision rights — Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide — so a stalled decision can be diagnosed (usually a missing or contested 'Decide' role, or an 'Agree' party with a veto). For a small team making a routine call, RAPID is usually heavier than you need; DACI or a simple owner is faster.
No. DACI is a lightweight convention you can run in a document, a spreadsheet, or the header of a decision brief — one Driver, one Approver, a list of Contributors, and who is Informed. Software helps when you want a searchable record of many decisions over time and a trail of the reasoning behind each one, but the framework itself is just a way of labelling roles and does not require a tool.
Record the decision statement, then list the people or groups holding each RAPID role (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide), the recommendation that was put forward, and the final decision with its date. The part frameworks do not capture is why the decider chose as they did — the arguments for and against, and how input was weighed. Capturing that reasoning alongside the roles is what turns a role chart into a durable decision record. See how a decision log and an audit trail preserve the reasoning.
Pair your decision-role framework with a reasoning map. Capture the arguments behind every decision with Argumentree.
Start Free Trial