---
id: "concept-co-created-racis"
type: "concept"
source_timestamps: ["§ Mistake 2"]
tags: ["buy-in", "collaboration", "power-sharing"]
related: ["claim-dictated-spreadsheets-fail", "contrarian-raci-as-conversation"]
definition: "The practice of collaboratively debating and assigning decision roles with the stakeholders involved, rather than dictating them top-down, to ensure organizational buy-in."
sources: ["governance"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-governance"
originDay: 7
articleStem: "hbr-sig-48-decision-rights"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/07/what-companies-get-wrong-about-decision-rights"
sourceTitle: "What Companies Get Wrong About Decision Rights"
---
# Co-created RACIs

**Co-created RACIs** shift decision rights from a static, top-down mandate to a dynamic, collaborative agreement. When leaders unilaterally define roles in a spreadsheet, teams rarely comply because there is no shared buy-in — the failure documented in [[claim-dictated-spreadsheets-fail]].

Co-creation requires **bringing the people who will actually live with the decision into a room** to debate roles, air resentments, and resolve tensions up front. These initial conversations can be difficult and often surface underlying communication problems, but they are essential. Through the process, **power sharing becomes visible**: leaders model when to step back into a Consulted role and when to step up as Accountable.

The resulting buy-in ensures team members actually play their assigned positions when execution begins. This is the operational heart of the reframing [[contrarian-raci-as-conversation]] and the quote [[quote-conversation-starters]]. When disputes over accountability arise during co-creation, teams apply the [[framework-raci-conflict-resolution]].

*Enrichment:* expert guides (CIO, Project-Management.com, Atlassian, University of Phoenix) uniformly recommend collaborative creation and stakeholder review of the RACI matrix; purely top-down assignment is a documented common mistake.