Responsibility Charting information and action toolkit Module 1

Responsibility Charting information and action toolkit

Module 1 � Introduction to responsibility charting

What is responsibility charting? A technique that confronts and deals with ambiguity or conflict among roles in complex organizations. An [illustrative] way of recording and analyzing: Organizational structures q Departmental relationships q Environment q Strategic alternatives, q Executive job content q Functional responsibilities q Authority q Decision-making processes. Korey (1988) q

Responsibility charting is also known as � Linear Responsibility Charting � � � Clarify and refine functional organizational structures and problems which seem to defy systematization � Simplify the intricate processes of decision making where organizational requirements and interrelationships are especially complex. Management Responsibility Matrix � � An easy-to-apply analytical technique to: A way to analyze processes by exposing existing and potential problems and spotlighting differences quickly. A way to highlight objectively the organizational responsibilities and to resolve any conflicts. A way to guide and define the administration of the organizational activities. RACI – Responsible, Accountable, Consult, Inform � A tool used for identifying roles and responsibilities during a change process An example of a linear responsibility chart

Different Models � RACI (ARCI) Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed � RACI-VS Verifier, Signatory (VS) � RASCI RACI + Support (S) � CAIRO RACI + Out of Loop (O) � DACI Drivers, Approver, Contributors, Informed � RAPID Example of a basic responsibility chart using Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, the RACI model Decide

Module 2 � Objectives and Benefits

The business case: why do we need it? � � � Complex Organizations require richer range of relationships among actors and decisions. Managers are subjected to rapidly changing and increasingly complex organizational settings that often result in unclear lines of responsibility. New ideas flounder due to ambiguity around role involvement and decision making Reduces duplication of work, overlapping work, and overlapping authority � Increases productivity � Instills commitment and motivation � Realigns tasks in times of expansion/contraction � Eliminates unnecessary overhead quickly �

Benefits to Responsibility Charting Build and design organization structure to meet the business' objectives. � Illustrates relationships between team members. � Address uneven distribution of responsibility or workload � Clarify goals, roles and responsibilities � Instill personal accountability � Opens up the opportunity to resolve conflicts and discussions � Improve communication relative to workflow � Ensures important/relevant processes are not overlooked �

Module 3 � Implementation

OD interventions: when should we use it? Individual triggers Environmental triggers � Interpersonal and group change processes at the senior or middle level � Reduced accountability and lack of initiative? � Merged or acquired functional units � � Reorganized departments � Newly formed teams Feelings of being wrongly excluded from decisions or unplanned duplication of effort? � Duplication of work or overlapping authority � Ineffective implementation of new idea? � Communication or teamwork is lacking � Increased resistance to change? Reducing role stress Role ambiguity and historical tensions are potent sources of stress in the work environment, associated with a variety of negative attitudinal health and behavioral outcomes. Thus, role clarification interventions can be used as stress control strategies.

Phase 1: definition of tasks and roles STEP 2 List the people involved STEP 1 List activities or tasks - Who is directly involved? - Which managers and committees apply controls? - Are there any other players (non decision-makers)? STEP 3 Identify each person's responsibility with respect to the activity

List people or roles relevant to listed decisions/tas ks Phase 2: Developing the matrix � � � There can only be one person Accountable per activity. Make effort to have only one Responsible person per activity. A Responsible person and an Accountable person must be assigned to every row. Place Accountability and Responsibility at the lowest level possible. It is common to create the matrix for key stakeholders only. Actor 1 Actor 2 Actor 3 Actor 4 Activity or Decision 1 Activity or Decision 2 Activity or Decision 3 Activity or Decision 4 Microsoft offers a downloadable RACI template for free at http: //office. microsoft. com/enus/ctndirectdownload. aspx? Asset. ID=TC 103987164&A pplication=XL&Version=15&Result=14 Activity or Decision 5 • • Focus on high-impact activities first Avoid obvious /ambiguous tasks Between 10 – 25 activities is sufficient Each activity/decision should begin with an action verb

Rules of thumb � Operational setting: � � Develop responsibility charts based on how processes and associated tasks are carried out, not according to the status and authority of the people who are listed against the process. Project management setting: � Use the tool to form project teams and delegate tasks. Use it as a reference point to check if things get done or don't happen. � Assign responsibility for each task to only one person. � Avoid having too many people with an approval-veto function on any single item. This will slow down task completion or will negate it altogether � The support function’s specific demands must be clarified and clearly assigned � Be prepared for discussion: � A person may want to exercise a veto on an item, but not really need it � A person may not want to support responsibility on an item, but should have it � Two people each want responsibility on a particular item, but only one can have it

Responsibility Charting FAQ Advice from Learning Group Consultants I was always selective about where I used RACI charting. . . Where I did use it was when groups had a history of contentiousness over role clarity, and the client embraced the idea of the chart. (Stephen Pile) How should I approach the use Responsibility Charting? � How do I know that Responsibility Charting is right for my client? � As with so much of what we do, its important to understand the expectations for the tool. Why is it being used? Is the timing right? What are the expected benefits? Does the team (assuming in a team setting) have a good understanding of the tool? What is their experience with it? (I have seen the tool used well – and as a weapon, so good to know local history). – (David Tipton) I have used the RASCI chart as part of an initiative or project (the RASCI chart has never been the project). I rarely use it explicitly with a client, however, the content of the RASCI chart is attended to in the process. I have found more and more, that when a chart or framework is explicitly used, it is "attended to" too superficially, rather than addressing the content in a meaningful and comprehensive way that is woven into the work at the appropriate point/stage. Much of the content is actually addressed at the start of any initiative when we discuss who needs to be involved, why, when and how. More and more of my clients are engaging the whole system and considering roles and integration of work right at the start. When this is done, the purpose and work of the RASCI chart is seamlessly integrated into discussions, decisions, and how everyone works together. So, rather than explicitly use the chart with a client, it is part of my facilitation of the discussions that take place with the client, and they learn the types of discussions and issues that need to be addressed during an initiative, which go beyond what is in the chart. (Jill Shaver)

Responsibility Charting FAQ Advice from Learning Group Consultants How do I set the exercise up to improve the chances of a successful intervention? � The tool I prefer to use is the one I've co-designed with the client, beginning with RACI and adding a column or two and/or changing the names of the functions/stakeholders to fit the project and the organization. (Stephen Pile) � Before hand, I prefer to work with the stakeholders mapping out their functional work-streams, looking and improving connections and timing, and gaining clarity about what defines the beginning, key checkpoints, and end. Key "tasks" are then fed into the Responsibility Chart *after* functional work is laid out in a beginning plan. (Stephen Pile) � Building on the above, the tool has been around for a while, so good to check on understanding – and make a case for building shared understanding, which some may not like, but I also recommend this not be the first time the imperative for needing shared understanding is made… This includes having a dialogue on RASCI in general, and where needed, at the task/job level as well. RASCI'S can get pretty granular, so good to judge what needs to be done as whole group vs. giving parts to subsets, let them work it, and then come back with recommendations. (David Tipton) � There's an opportunity for dialogue (and agreement) about what processes to chart, what tasks or functions to list, and what level of personnel to describe, as well as the purposes of the exercise for the group. This can be done with the whole group affected or sometimes in a small subset, and it is of course best done with those directly engaged in the process being considered. It's easy to describe tasks at too high or too micro a level, so getting the intention here right with the team up front is helpful. The items mapped should be at a manageable number, and not too many, for an effective conversation. I've found that ample time should be taken to get agreement on these pieces up front or the exercise tends to fall apart in practice. This can be done in a separate preparatory planning session or at the front end of the workshop, depending on scope, timing, and the situation. The second major opportunity for dialogue is in the facilitated workshop itself working thru the RACI chart. After session start-ups that describe and confirm agreement on the process and purpose of the exercise and the matrix itself, I've had each member, in a nominal technique, fill out the cells. These can then be reported out and displayed visually for all to see--then the differences aired and the rationales for each shared by each and worked through until understanding on roles and agreements for action are reached. This can take time, including discussing meaning and implications for each, so again, sufficient planning up front for this and flexibility in the facilitation is needed as the discussion unfolds. (Marty Goldberg)

Responsibility Charting FAQ Advice from Learning Group Consultants What group dynamics can I identify as I facilitate that would be indicators I’m getting off track? � The map is not the territory, i. e. , clients can prematurely believe they've figured out roles, and quickly begin to ignore the chart when real work happens. Given this, it is important to get them to discuss historically (or predicted) contentious issues and boundaries as they understand what the chart is really describing. (Stephen Pile) I echo Steve's comments entirely that "the map is not the territory": the best use of the RACI tool is NOT simply to populate a set of cells that outline roles against tasks for a given process. Those can be populated all day long without much effect on any behavior or people's ways of looking at things. The trick is to use it as a device, or intervention, to engage people in a conversation about who does what, when, and why. Then, in David's spirit, to reach agreements on that for action. That can be accomplished in facilitated workshops often to good effect (presuming of course this is the right conversation a group wants and agrees to for the work it needs to do). (Marty Goldberg) � � This tool often takes some time to do it right, and so there can be signals from the group that they are tired, getting distracted. I know this, so am able to fight my desire to ease their frustration. Along with this, and with many of these types of tools, be aware that it can quickly become the “tail wagging the dog”…so look for ways to assess what is going on in the room and help them address as needed. (David Tipton) I agree you can see the group sometimes tire (and yourself as facilitator) in working through what can become tedious. Also, as with many analytic type group exercises there can be tendency for the whole thing to become too "scientific" and the discussion elements lost, so flow and attention here to what's really happening, understanding key priorities and issues, not just mashing through the exercise, is key. (Marty Goldberg) What do you do once the client has finished and agreed upon the Responsibility Chart? � Once the RASCI is done, I ask the group I am working with if it makes sense to do a review of how the RASCI is holding up – and what needs to be adapted, if revisiting the tool makes sense. Some groups like this, others find it a struggle. If that is the case, I ask them if verifying the roles downstream is important – and if so, what do they want to assess and how. (David Tipton) � Following the exercise, revisiting how role interactions are working with the team over time (even more than checking the validity of the matrix) can reinforce key themes and takeaways and further build the team and learning. (Marty Goldberg)

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Hamilton, T. M. (1968). Clarifying Responsibility Relationships. California Management Review, 10(3), 41 -52 Mcadam, Rodney & Mc. Intyre, Seamus (1997) A business process improvement methodology which incorporates learning organization concepts. Total Quality Management, 8: 2 -3, 221 -225 http: //www. institute. nhs. uk/quality_and_service_improvement_tools/quality_a nd_service_improvement_tools/project_management__responsibility_charting. html http: //www. qihub. scot. nhs. uk/knowledge-centre/quality-improvementtools/responsibility-charting. aspx http: //books. google. com/books? id=i. Fhzl. R_Vs 4 AC&pg=PA 132&lpg=PA 132&d q=responsibility+charting+intervention&source=bl&ots=S 7 Etwjp. Dg. D&sig=ua 1 pha. G 9 B 1 DA 3 Em. Mf. Krn. Hc. W 754 U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0 QBw. U_Cb. KJLYo. ATrp o. HYBQ&ved=0 CDQQ 6 AEw. Ajg. K#v=onepage&q=responsibility%20 charting% 20 intervention&f=false http: //www. jiscinfonet. ac. uk/tools/responsibility-charting/ http: //www. referenceforbusiness. com/encyclopedia/Oli-Per/Organizational. Development. html#b http: //www. edrawsoft. com/why-use-orgchart. php