The DACI Decision-Making Framework was developed by software company Intuit in the 1980s. The DACI Decision-Making Framework assigns and then displays the responsibilities of the individual when making decision. DACI stands for driver, approver, contributor, and informed.
DACI Framework
Description
Analysis
Implications
Applications
Examples
1. Key Elements (KE)
The DACI Decision-Making Framework is a collaborative decision-making model that clarifies roles and responsibilities in the decision-making process. It assigns four key roles: Driver, Approver, Contributor, and Informed.
– Identify and define the roles of Driver, Approver, Contributor, and Informed in the decision-making process. – Clarify the responsibilities and authority associated with each role. – Ensure that roles are assigned based on expertise and relevance to the decision.
– Provides a clear and structured approach to decision-making. – Avoids confusion and ambiguity regarding who is responsible for what. – Ensures that decision-making is inclusive and leverages the expertise of team members.
– Decision-making in cross-functional teams. – Project approval processes. – Strategic planning and initiatives requiring stakeholder input.
Key Elements Example: Assigning roles within a cross-functional team for a product development decision: Driver (Product Manager), Approver (Director of Product), Contributors (Engineers), Informed (Customer Support).
2. Driver (D)
The Driver is the individual or role responsible for initiating and leading the decision-making process. They identify the need for a decision, gather relevant information, and drive discussions.
– Identify the Driver responsible for leading the decision-making process. – Assess the Driver’s ability to effectively lead and facilitate discussions. – Ensure that the Driver has access to necessary resources and information.
– Ensures that decisions are initiated and driven by a designated leader. – Facilitates efficient decision-making by assigning a clear leader. – May impact the quality of the decision based on the Driver’s competence and engagement.
– Project managers leading project decisions. – Team leaders facilitating group discussions. – Initiatives requiring a clear point of accountability.
Driver Example: The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) serves as the Driver in deciding on the adoption of a new technology stack for a software development project.
3. Approver (A)
The Approver is the individual or role responsible for giving final approval or authorization for the decision. They review the proposed decision, consider its alignment with goals, and make the final call.
– Identify the Approver responsible for final authorization of the decision. – Assess the Approver’s authority and decision-making power. – Ensure that the Approver reviews the decision’s alignment with organizational objectives and strategic goals.
– Ensures that decisions receive official approval and support. – Provides a mechanism for ensuring decisions align with organizational objectives. – May impact the timeliness of decision-making based on the Approver’s availability and responsiveness.
– Governance committees approving project proposals. – Senior executives making strategic decisions. – Compliance and regulatory decision points.
Approver Example: The CEO serves as the Approver for a major strategic decision related to entering a new market, providing the final authorization based on strategic alignment.
4. Contributor (C)
Contributors are individuals or roles that provide input, expertise, and contributions to the decision-making process. They offer insights, data, and recommendations to inform the decision.
– Identify Contributors who can offer relevant expertise and insights. – Engage Contributors in the decision-making process by soliciting their input and recommendations. – Ensure that Contributors have access to necessary data and resources to contribute effectively.
– Leverages the collective knowledge and expertise of team members. – Enhances the quality of decisions through diverse perspectives and input. – May introduce complexity and require coordination among Contributors.
– Cross-functional teams collaborating on decisions. – Brainstorming and ideation sessions. – Technical reviews and evaluations.
Contributor Example: Engineers, designers, and marketing experts serve as Contributors in the decision to launch a new product, offering technical, design, and market insights.
5. Informed (I)
The Informed individuals or roles are kept informed about the decision and its outcomes but do not actively participate in the decision-making process. They are updated on the decision’s progress and results.
– Identify the Informed parties who need to be kept informed about the decision. – Ensure that Informed parties receive clear communication regarding the decision’s progress, outcomes, and implications. – Consider the relevance of information to Informed parties’ roles and responsibilities.
– Keeps relevant stakeholders informed and aware of decision outcomes. – Provides transparency and visibility into the decision-making process. – May require tailored communication to ensure understanding and alignment among Informed parties.
– Stakeholders and team members affected by the decision but not directly involved. – Communicating decisions to project teams or external parties. – Ensuring transparency in decision-making processes.
Informed Example: Customer support teams are Informed about a decision to update a product’s pricing strategy to ensure they are aware of potential customer inquiries and changes in support needs.
It is a group decision-making technique assigning roles and responsibilities to team members.
This includes identifying those who:
Must be consulted for further information.
Must be tasked with conducting research, interviews, surveys, or polls.
Must be informed once a decision has been made.
Make, approve, or disapprove decisions.
Follow or decide on recommendations.
By clearly delineating roles and responsibilities, the DACI framework encourages collaboration and reduces friction. Ultimately, this increases the speed of project management, allowing teams to make informed and timely decisions crucial to success.
The four roles of the DACI Decision-Making Framework
DACI is an acronym of four different group member roles that aid in simplifying decision-making.
Following is a look at each:
D – Driver
This is the individual who moves the decision making process forward. They ensure that decisions are made without necessarily making the decision themself on each occasion.
Drivers are tasked with setting decision timelines and ensuring that team activities run on schedule. They must also liaise with subject matter experts to make well-informed decisions.
A – Approver
The approver has the final say on a project aspect. Many companies may have more than one approver, but they should be kept to a minimum to fully realize the DACI benefits of speed and simplicity.
C – Contributor
A contributor is a person who influences decision making through specific knowledge or expertise. As a result, they act as consultants to drivers who then determine how that knowledge or expertise can be utilised.
I – Informed
Informed individuals have no authority over decision making, nor are they directly involved in the project itself.
Nevertheless, their own work may be indirectly affected as the project progresses. For a team working on a new product, an informed group may encompass customer service, sales, and marketing. While these groups have no say on the final product, they should be regularly updated so that resource allocation and planning can progress accordingly.
Drawbacks of the DACI Decision-Making Framework
Potential for Role Confusion
If not clearly communicated and understood, the specific roles within DACI can lead to confusion, particularly in larger teams or complex projects where multiple stakeholders are involved.
Risk of Over-Reliance on the Driver
The framework places significant responsibility on the Driver, which can lead to issues if the designated Driver lacks the necessary skills, experience, or understanding of the project.
Possible Delays in Decision-Making
The structured nature of DACI can sometimes slow down the decision-making process, especially if there are delays in communication or if the Approver is not readily available.
Exclusion of Broader Team Perspectives
By focusing only on designated roles, there’s a risk of excluding valuable input from other team members who are not formally recognized in the DACI framework.
Misalignment with Organizational Culture
In organizations where collaborative and consensus-based decision-making is the norm, the hierarchical structure of DACI might not align well and could meet resistance.
When to Use the DACI Decision-Making Framework
In Complex Projects
DACI is particularly useful in complex projects where clear roles and responsibilities need to be defined to manage the decision-making process effectively.
For Cross-Functional Teams
In cross-functional teams where members come from different parts of the organization, DACI can help clarify roles and streamline decision-making.
During Rapid Growth or Scaling
For organizations experiencing rapid growth or scaling, DACI provides a structure to manage decision-making processes amidst changing team dynamics.
When Streamlining Decision Processes
DACI is ideal for situations where decision-making processes have been identified as inefficient or where there is a need for greater clarity in how decisions are made.
What to Expect from Implementing the DACI Decision-Making Framework
Improved Decision-Making Clarity
DACI can bring clarity and structure to the decision-making process, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
Enhanced Efficiency
By streamlining the decision-making process, DACI can lead to more efficient and timely decisions, avoiding the common pitfalls of unstructured or ad-hoc decision-making.
Better Accountability
The framework enhances accountability, with each role having a clear set of expectations and responsibilities.
Potential for Faster Decision Cycles
With a clear process in place, decision cycles can become faster and more responsive to the needs of the project or organization.
Increased Team Engagement
When team members understand their roles and contributions in the decision-making process, it can lead to increased engagement and a sense of ownership over the outcomes.
Implementing the DACI Decision-Making Framework
Teams that want to implement the DACI model should:
Determine the decision to be made. Here, the emphasis is on breaking the project down into smaller tasks and assigning a Driver to each. There should also be agreement on each action item and its associated outcomes.
Define DACI roles. Then, assign roles such as Approver or Contributor to each member of the team using a spreadsheet. Ensure that every individual understands their role well. It’s also important to note that one individual can hold several roles if required.
Define the workflow. At this point, the Driver begins developing the action plan. These plans should be broad and answer important questions. For example, who should attend meetings and how often will meetings occur once the project has begun? Will tasks be tracked by using a project management app, spreadsheet, or roadmap software? What will be the nature or structure of the decision-making process? In other words, will the Approver and Contributor have more say in decision making? Or will the project team as a whole collaborate directly with the Driver?
Key takeaways:
The DACI Decision-Making Framework clarifies roles and responsibilities for each member of a product development team to make better decisions.
The DACI Decision-Making Framework is based on four key roles that comprise the DACI acronym: Drivers, Approvers, Contributors, and Informed.
The DACI Decision-Making Framework is effective when projects are broken into smaller parts, with roles assigned to each. Before the project can begin, all members must understand and then agree upon their roles and responsibilities.
Key Highlights
Definition: The DACI Decision-Making Framework, introduced by Intuit in the 1980s, streamlines decision-making processes by assigning specific responsibilities to team members. DACI stands for Driver, Approver, Contributor, and Informed.
Understanding DACI:
A group decision-making technique that allocates roles and duties to team members.
Identifies individuals who need to be consulted, informed, contribute, or approve decisions.
Reduces friction, encourages collaboration, and accelerates project management.
Roles in DACI:
D – Driver:
Moves decision-making forward without necessarily making decisions.
Sets timelines and coordinates with experts for informed decisions.
A – Approver:
Holds final decision-making authority on a project aspect.
Minimized to maintain speed and simplicity.
C – Contributor:
Influences decisions through specialized knowledge or expertise.
Acts as a consultant to drivers for effective utilization.
I – Informed:
Has no decision-making power but is indirectly affected by the project.
Regularly updated to align resource allocation and planning.
Implementing DACI:
Define the decision to be made and break it into manageable tasks.
Assign roles (Driver, Approver, Contributor, Informed) to team members using a spreadsheet.
Develop an action plan, addressing key questions such as meeting frequency and decision-making structure.
Ensure all team members understand and agree upon their roles before starting the project.
Key Characteristics:
DACI Decision-Making Framework clarifies roles and responsibilities within a product development team.
Four roles in DACI: Driver, Approver, Contributor, and Informed.
Effective implementation involves breaking projects into tasks, defining roles, and agreeing on responsibilities beforehand.
Related Frameworks
Definition
Focus
Application
DACI (Driver, Approver, Contributor, Informed)
A decision-making framework that clarifies roles and responsibilities within a team or organization for decision-making processes. DACI assigns four key roles: Driver (responsible for driving the decision process), Approver (authorizing the decision), Contributor (providing input or expertise), and Informed (kept informed about the decision outcome).
Focuses on ensuring clarity and accountability in decision-making processes by assigning specific roles and responsibilities to team members, facilitating effective communication, collaboration, and consensus-building in decision-making.
Decision-making, Team Collaboration, Responsibility Assignment
A widely used responsibility assignment matrix that defines roles and responsibilities for tasks or decisions within a project or process. RACI assigns four key roles: Responsible (responsible for completing the task), Accountable (ultimately accountable for the task’s outcome), Consulted (providing input or expertise), and Informed (kept informed about the task’s progress or outcome).
Focuses on clarifying roles and responsibilities within a project or process, ensuring accountability, effective communication, and stakeholder engagement throughout the execution of tasks or decisions.
Project Management, Process Improvement, Organizational Governance
Decision Tree Analysis
A decision-making tool that uses a tree-like graph to model decisions and their possible consequences, including probabilities and payoffs. Decision trees help visualize complex decision scenarios and identify the most favorable courses of action.
Focuses on structuring decision-making by mapping out various decision alternatives, potential outcomes, and their associated probabilities and payoffs, enabling individuals to make informed decisions under uncertainty.
A decision-making model that helps leaders determine the appropriate level of employee participation in decision-making based on the nature of the decision and its impact on the organization. The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model classifies decision-making styles into autocratic, consultative, and collaborative approaches, depending on the level of employee involvement.
Focuses on selecting the most suitable decision-making style based on situational factors and desired outcomes, balancing the need for participation with considerations of time, information availability, and decision quality.
A structured decision-making technique that helps individuals or groups prioritize multiple criteria and alternatives by decomposing complex decisions into simpler components and evaluating them systematically.
Focuses on structuring decision-making by breaking down complex problems, comparing criteria and alternatives, and synthesizing judgments to reach a rational decision.
A sense-making framework developed by Dave Snowden to help leaders understand the nature of problems or situations they face and apply appropriate decision-making approaches. Cynefin categorizes contexts into five domains: Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and Disorder, each requiring different strategies and decision-making processes.
Focuses on matching decision-making approaches to the complexity and unpredictability of situations, guiding leaders in navigating uncertainty, managing risks, and fostering innovation and adaptation in complex environments.
A time management and prioritization framework that categorizes tasks based on their urgency and importance into four quadrants: Important and Urgent, Important but Not Urgent, Urgent but Not Important, and Not Urgent and Not Important.
Focuses on prioritizing tasks based on their urgency and importance, helping individuals and teams allocate time and resources effectively, reduce stress, and focus on high-impact activities.
Time Management, Productivity Improvement, Task Prioritization
Pugh Matrix
A decision-making tool used to compare multiple alternatives against a set of criteria or requirements, facilitating objective evaluation and selection of the most promising solution or option. The Pugh matrix helps identify the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative and assess their overall suitability for the intended purpose.
Focuses on evaluating and comparing alternatives based on predefined criteria, guiding decision-makers in selecting the most viable solution or option among competing alternatives.
Simon’s satisficing strategy is a decision-making technique where the individual considers various solutions until they find an acceptable option. Satisficing is a portmanteau combining sufficing and satisfying and was created by psychologist Herbert A. Simon. He argued that many individuals make decisions with a satisfactory (and not optimal) solution. Satisfactory decisions are preferred because they achieve an acceptable result and avoid the resource-intensive search for something more optimal.
The RAPID framework is a tool used to help businesses make important decisions. The RAPID framework was developed by global consultancy firm Bain & Company, which noted that “high-quality decision making and strong performance go hand in hand.”
The Foursquare Protocol is an ethical decision-making model. The Foursquare Protocol helps businesses respond to challenging situations by making decisions according to a code of ethics. It can also be used to help individuals make decisions in the context of their own moral principles. It consists of four steps: gather the facts, understand previous decisions, assess the degree of similarity to past events, and assess yourself.
The DACI Decision-Making Framework was developed by software company Intuit in the 1980s. The DACI Decision-Making Framework assigns and then displays the responsibilities of the individual when making decision. DACI stands for driver, approver, contributor, and informed.
The Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ) is a means of making fast decisions that provide quick direction. The Lightning Decision Jam was developed by design agency AJ&Smart in response to the inefficiency of business meetings. Borrowing ideas from the core principles of design sprints, AJ&Smart created the Lightning Decision Jam.
The multi-criteria analysis provides a systematic approach for ranking adaptation options against multiple decision criteria. These criteria are weighted to reflect their importance relative to other criteria. A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is a decision-making framework suited to solving problems with many alternative courses of action.
The Cynefin Framework gives context to decision making and problem-solving by providing context and guiding an appropriate response. The five domains of the Cynefin Framework comprise obvious, complicated, complex, chaotic domains and disorder if a domain has not been determined at all.
A SWOT Analysis is a framework used for evaluating the business’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. It can aid in identifying the problematic areas of your business so that you can maximize your opportunities. It will also alert you to the challenges your organization might face in the future.
The SWOT analysis is commonly used as a strategic planning tool in business. However, it is also well suited for personal use in addressing a specific goal or problem. A personal SWOT analysis helps individuals identify their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
The Pareto Analysis is a statistical analysis used in business decision making that identifies a certain number of input factors that have the greatest impact on income. It is based on the similarly named Pareto Principle, which states that 80% of the effect of something can be attributed to just 20% of the drivers.
A failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a structured approach to identifying design failures in a product or process. Developed in the 1950s, the failure mode and effects analysis is one the earliest methodologies of its kind. It enables organizations to anticipate a range of potential failures during the design stage.
A Blindspot Analysis is a means of unearthing incorrect or outdated assumptions that can harm decision making in an organization. The term “blindspot analysis” was first coined by American economist Michael Porter. Porter argued that in business, outdated ideas or strategies had the potential to stifle modern ideas and prevent them from succeeding. Furthermore, decisions a business thought were made with care caused projects to fail because major factors had not been duly considered.
A comparable company analysis is a process that enables the identification of similar organizations to be used as a comparison to understand the business and financial performance of the target company. To find comparables you can look at two key profiles: the business and financial profile. From the comparable company analysis it is possible to understand the competitive landscape of the target organization.
A cost-benefit analysis is a process a business can use to analyze decisions according to the costs associated with making that decision. For a cost analysis to be effective it’s important to articulate the project in the simplest terms possible, identify the costs, determine the benefits of project implementation, assess the alternatives.
Agile Business Analysis (AgileBA) is certification in the form of guidance and training for business analysts seeking to work in agile environments. To support this shift, AgileBA also helps the business analyst relate Agile projects to a wider organizational mission or strategy. To ensure that analysts have the necessary skills and expertise, AgileBA certification was developed.
A SOAR analysis is a technique that helps businesses at a strategic planning level to:
Focus on what they are doing right.
Determine which skills could be enhanced.
Understand the desires and motivations of their stakeholders.
The STEEPLE analysis is a variation of the STEEP analysis. Where the step analysis comprises socio-cultural, technological, economic, environmental/ecological, and political factors as the base of the analysis. The STEEPLE analysis adds other two factors such as Legal and Ethical.
The PESTEL analysis is a framework that can help marketers assess whether macro-economic factors are affecting an organization. This is a critical step that helps organizations identify potential threats and weaknesses that can be used in other frameworks such as SWOT or to gain a broader and better understanding of the overall marketing environment.
A DESTEP analysis is a framework used by businesses to understand their external environment and the issues which may impact them. The DESTEP analysis is an extension of the popular PEST analysis created by Harvard Business School professor Francis J. Aguilar. The DESTEP analysis groups external factors into six categories: demographic, economic, socio-cultural, technological, ecological, and political.
A paired comparison analysis is used to rate or rank options where evaluation criteria are subjective by nature. The analysis is particularly useful when there is a lack of clear priorities or objective data to base decisions on. A paired comparison analysis evaluates a range of options by comparing them against each other.
Hickam’s dictum is the counterargument to Occam’s razor. Whereas Occam’s razor is a heuristic that tends to narrow down decision-making to the simplest variables, Hickam’s dictum believes a situation must be tackled by looking at multiple variables.
Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.
Occam’s broom was first proposed by South African microbiologist Sidney Brenner who proposed that inconvenient facts that do not fit into someone’s hypothesis or serve their agenda are swept aside or hidden. Occam’s broom is a principle stating that inconvenient facts are hidden or obscured to draw important conclusions or argue points.
Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.
The theory behind the principle-agent problem was developed by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Jensen and economist and management professor William H. Meckling. The principle-agent problem describes a conflict in priorities between a person or group and the representative authorized to make decisions on their behalf.
The TDODAR decision model helps an individual make good decisions in emergencies or any scenario with a high degree of uncertainty. TDODAR is an acronym of the six sequential steps that every practitioner must follow, comprising: time, diagnosis, options, decide, act/assign, review.
The Mendelow stakeholder matrix is a framework used to analyze stakeholder attitudes and expectations and their potential impact on business decisions.
The Foursquare Protocol is an ethical decision-making model. The Foursquare Protocol helps businesses respond to challenging situations by making decisions according to a code of ethics. It can also be used to help individuals make decisions in the context of their own moral principles. It consists of four steps: gather the facts, understand previous decisions, assess the degree of similarity to past events, and assess yourself.
In general, terms, go/no-go decision making is a process of passing or failing a proposition. Each proposition is assessed according to criteria that determine whether a project advances to the next stage. The outcome of the go/no-go decision making is to assess whether to go or not to go with a project, or perhaps proceed with caveats.
The OODA loop was popularized by U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Colonel John Boyd to describe maneuver warfare during the Korean War. The OODA loop is a four-step approach to decision making where strategies must be adjusted quickly. Those four steps comprise observe, orient, decide, and act.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
