How is the four-role decision-rights model different from RACI?

RACI identifies who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed for work. The practical model on this page records decide, consult, inform, and veto for a decision. Neither label set replaces the actual authority, execution owner, or escalation boundary.

Where should decision rights live as a document?

Keep the current record where the people using it can find it: the operating manual, governance records, or company wiki. Name who maintains it and check it when roles or authority change.

Does every decision need named rights?

Map recurring, disputed, consequential, or cross-functional decisions first. Routine calls can sit within an agreed role boundary; exceptions still need a named escalation route.

Does the board hold veto on every decision?

Do not infer a blanket veto from the word board. Confirm the applicable authority in governing documents, agreements, delegated approvals, and law with the appropriate legal professional. A working matrix records that authority; it does not create or override it.

When should an owner work with Stan?

When unclear decision rights keep creating delay, rework, owner dependence, or failed delegation. The work examines recurring decisions, actual approvals, and the authority change to test with the people involved.

Canonical definition

What are decision rights?

By Stan Tscherenkow. Updated September 20, 2026.

Decision rights specify who has authority to make a decision and what limits apply. This page uses four practical roles: decide, consult, inform, and veto. Writing them down exposes unclear authority; the company still has to provide the information, capability, and follow-through needed to use it.

In one sentence

The written record of who carries each decision in a company.

What this means for the owner

If people keep asking permission for decisions they should be able to close, the issue may not be confidence. It may be that the company never named the deciding right. Check where approval requests repeat, where exceptions escalate, and where the same call is reopened after meetings.

Do not add more meetings before the decision right is visible.

What it actually does

The practical model on this page separates four roles:

Decide. The person assigned to make the call within the agreed boundary. Record any joint approval the actual authority requires.
Consult. The people whose input must be heard before the call is made. Their opinion is mandatory; their agreement is not.
Inform. The people who must be told once the decision is made. They do not block the call; they need the news.
Veto. Any person or body with an established right to block the decision. Record the source and limit of that right; consultation alone does not create it.

Use the existing decision-rights matrix to record the decision, authority limit, escalation route, and execution owner together.

Framework distinction: PMI describes RACI as a responsibility chart for project work. Bain's RAPID model separates Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide. The four roles above are the working model explained here, not a universal standard or a replacement for those frameworks.

What it is not

Not the same as RACI. RACI maps responsibility and accountability for work. This page focuses on who may make a particular decision, whose input is required, and which limits apply. Both records may be needed.
Not the same as org chart. The org chart describes manager lines. Decision rights describe deciding lines. They overlap but are not identical.
Not the same as approval workflow. An approval workflow is a procedure. Decision rights are a structural fact upstream of the procedure.
Not proof of execution. A named decider still needs usable information and people responsible for carrying out the decision.
Not a one-time exercise. Decision rights are a living document that updates when authority transfers, roles change, or governance shifts.

Three common repeated situations

Pattern 1

The pricing decision that was three decisions.

Pricing seems to belong to the head of sales. In reality it may touch sales, finance, delivery cost, and owner exception authority. The first check is who owns the final decision.

Pattern 2

The hire that needed a veto.

A senior hire may look like an operating decision while the agreement gives veto rights to the board. The risk is not only hiring quality. It is unconfirmed authority.

Pattern 3

The exception that escalated to the owner.

A manager-level exception escalates because the manager's authority is not explicit. The first check is the threshold, not the personality of the person escalating.

When to use it

Name decision rights when:

The same decision is being re-litigated in different meetings.
Senior hires have failed because they did not have the rights the role suggested.
Investors or board members have entered and the historical structure no longer fits.
The owner is the constraint and the cause is unclear authority, not lack of trust.
A cross-functional decision keeps stalling.

Skip the formal exercise when:

Authority and escalation limits are already understood and used, including when the usual decision owner is absent.
Decisions are closing fast and the pattern is healthy.
A new document would repeat an existing, working authority record.

Common questions

How is the four-role decision-rights model different from RACI?: RACI identifies who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed for work. The practical model on this page records decide, consult, inform, and veto for a decision. Neither label set replaces the actual authority, execution owner, or escalation boundary.
Where should decision rights live as a document?: Keep the current record where the people using it can find it: the operating manual, governance records, or company wiki. Name who maintains it and check it when roles or authority change.
Does every decision need named rights?: Map recurring, disputed, consequential, or cross-functional decisions first. Routine calls can sit within an agreed role boundary; exceptions still need a named escalation route.
Does the board hold veto on every decision?: Do not infer a blanket veto from the word board. Confirm the applicable authority in governing documents, agreements, delegated approvals, and law with the appropriate legal professional. A working matrix records that authority; it does not create or override it.
When should an owner work with Stan?: When unclear decision rights keep creating delay, rework, owner dependence, or failed delegation. The work examines recurring decisions, actual approvals, and the authority change to test with the people involved.

When decision rights need ongoing business advisory

One decision-rights record can be enough for a contained approval. Ongoing advisory becomes useful when the same authority conflict appears across pricing, hiring, spending, customer promises, leadership roles, or board involvement.

Stan and the owner start with one decision that keeps returning. They compare the written structure with what people actually do, name the authority limit, assign the execution owner, and run the decision without the owner stepping back in. The next meeting uses the result of that test, not the wording of the document, to decide what changes next.

The working output is a current decision-rights record, an escalation path, a named internal owner, and evidence that the decision closed at the intended level. Governing documents, employment terms, investor rights, and legal authority still require the appropriate professional.

Use this before you add another fix.

Work with Stan on the disputed decisions, current approval path, and first authority change to test. The business advisory page explains the ongoing relationship and scoped company work.

Work with Stan on decision rights Business problems