A guide to RACI vs. RAPID vs. RASIC

As a product manager, you find yourself involved in complex, cross-functional projects with multiple stakeholders. In order to be successful, you need to have clarity on roles, responsibilities, and communication. Ambiguities cause conflicts, add delays, reduce accountability, and slow down growth.

The good news is you can lean on popular role-definition frameworks like RACI, RAPID, and RASIC to take a structured approach to assigning roles and clarifying accountability, ensuring projects run smoothly and efficiently. These frameworks empower you to streamline decision-making, enhance project execution, and foster effective collaboration among stakeholders.

Each framework has unique characteristics and use cases. This article unpacks RACI, RAPID, and RASIC to help you understand which one to choose for your next project.

What is RACI?

RACI is a widely used role-definition framework in project management, designed to clarify roles, ensure accountability, and streamline communication. RACI stands for responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed, and each represents a specific role in the execution and management of a task or project:

• (R)esponsible — The individuals or teams who complete the actual task and deliver the work. Hence, stakeholders in this role must have complete clarity on specific tasks assigned (e.g., developers writing code for a software feature)
• (A)ccountable — This person ensures the work is completed on time, meets quality standards, and aligns with project objectives (e.g., as the PM you ensure the software feature is delivered to stakeholders)
• (C)onsulted — Subject-matter experts whose input is sought before or during task execution (e.g., cloud architects consulted for designing cloud infra and services)
• (I)nformed — Individuals who don’t contribute directly but need updates on the task’s progress, outcomes, or decisions related to the task (e.g., senior management receiving updates on the project’s progress)

An example chart might look something like this:

Steps to implement the RACI framework

To implement the RACI framework follow these steps:

1. Identify deliverables — List all tasks, milestones, and deliverables required for the project
2. Identify stakeholders — List all the stakeholders impacted/affected by any changes in the project
3. Assign roles — Identify and assign the responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed roles for each task
4. Document — Build a table structure as in the example above
5. Publish — Share the RACI matrix with all stakeholders to ensure everyone understands their scope
6. Review and refine — As the project progresses, revisit the RACI matrix to ensure it remains accurate and relevant

Limitations of the RACI framework

Although RACI can be a great framework, it does some with its own set of limitations:

• Not for small projects — Unnecessary and overkill for projects with fewer stakeholders
• Potential for disagreements — Disputes may arise over role assignments, particularly over who is accountable
• Time-intensive Setup — Building, refining, and maintaining the RACI matrix can be time-consuming, especially for large, complex projects
• Rigid structure — RACI may lack flexibility in dynamic, fast-changing environments where roles evolve frequently

What is RAPID?

RAPID helps clarify roles and streamline organizational decision-making processes. Unlike task management frameworks, RAPID is specifically designed to identify who makes decisions, who provides input, and who implements them.

RAPID reduces ambiguity, accelerates decision timelines, and improves accountability. RAPID stands for recommend, agree, perform, input, and decide each representing a specific function in the decision-making process:

• (R)ecommend — Individuals or teams who are responsible for recommending a course of action by analyzing data and options. They are the initiators of the decision-making process and are accountable for the quality of their recommendations (e.g., you recommend a new feature to prioritize in the next development cycle)
• (A)gree — Stakeholders whose explicit approval is required for the decision to move forward. Recommenders work with approval holders to resolve disagreements and ensure alignment as they can influence the final decision significantly (e.g., the head of finance agrees on the budget allocation for the proposed feature)
• (P)erform — These are the people who implement and deliver the actual task you decided on (e.g., the engineering team developing the new feature after approval)
• (I)nput — Experts (equivalent to Consulted in RACI) who provide input, advice, or data that helps the recommender shape the proposal. They can only provide their knowledge and lack decision-making authority (e.g., a marketing analyst providing insights into user preferences for the proposed feature)
• (D)ecide — The stakeholder(s) who have the authority to make the final decision. They understand recommendations, input, and agreements to choose the best course of action (e.g., the CEO making the final call on whether to proceed with the feature development)

Example: Develop a feature “Vendor Cart” in an existing product.

Steps to implement the RAPID framework

To implement the RAPID framework, use the following steps:

1. Identify deliverables — List all tasks, milestones, and deliverables required for the project
2. Identify stakeholders — List all the stakeholders impacted/affected by any changes in the project
3. Assign RAPID roles — Identify who’ll recommend, agree, perform, input, and decide for the specific decision. Ensure role assignments align with expertise and organizational hierarchy
4. Communicate roles — Share the RAPID roles with all stakeholders to ensure clarity and alignment
5. Follow the process — Allow recommenders to present their proposals, gather input from experts, seek agreement from key stakeholders, and finalize the decision with the decider
6. Document and track decisions — Record the decision, assigned roles, and implementation plan to ensure accountability and follow-through
7. Review outcomes — Evaluate the results of the decision to refine the RAPID process for future use

Limitations of the RAPID framework

RAPID comes with limitations that are important to understand before making the decision to go with it:

• Time-consuming setup — Assigning and communicating RAPID roles can be time-intensive, especially for complex projects
• Requires organizational discipline — Success depends on adherence to the framework, which may require cultural or behavioral changes
• Potential for role confusion — Overlapping responsibilities between agree, input, and recommend can lead to conflicts if not clearly defined
• Not suitable for all decisions — For routine or low-impact decisions, RAPID may add unnecessary complexity

What is RASIC?

This framework helps in defining clear roles and responsibilities for a project. Here, an additional *support *role is defined which helps divide task execution and delivery responsibilities:

• (R)esponsible — The individuals or teams who complete the actual task and deliver the work. Accountability lies primarily with this role (e.g., you, as the PM, responsible for ensuring that a software feature is developed)
• (A)accountable — This individual has final authority to approve decisions, deliverables, or project milestones. Typically, there’s only one accountable role to avoid conflict (e.g., you approve the final feature before release)
• (S)upport — Individuals or teams who assist the responsible role by providing resources, tools, or expertise. They’re actively involved but not ultimately accountable. (e.g., the design team creates mockups to support the development team)
• (I)nformed — Individuals who don’t contribute directly but need updates on the task’s progress, outcomes, or decisions related to the task (e.g., senior management receiving updates on the project’s progress)
• (C)onsulted — Subject-matter experts whose input is sought before or during task execution (e.g., a legal advisor consulted for compliance considerations in the project)

A RASIC chart looks likes this:

Steps to implement the RASIC framework

To implement the RASIC framework, follow these steps:

1. Identify deliverables — List all tasks, milestones, and deliverables required for the project
2. Identify stakeholders — List all the stakeholders impacted/affected by any changes in the project
3. Assign RASIC roles — Determine who is responsible, who approves, who supports, who should be informed, and who should be consulted
4. Communicate roles — Share the RASIC matrix with the team to ensure clarity and alignment
5. Track and monitor progress — Use the RASIC framework as a reference throughout the project to ensure accountability and smooth execution

Limitations of the RASIC framework

When it comes to the RASIC framework, keep these limitations in mind:

• Complexity — Additional support roles can make the framework slightly more complex than RACI, requiring careful implementation
• Potential overlap — Misalignment in support and responsible roles can create confusion if not clearly defined
• Time-consuming setup — Assigning roles and ensuring all stakeholders understand them may require additional time

Comparison table of RAPID, RACI, and RASIC

This comparison table highlights the key differences, use cases, strengths, and limitations for RACI, RAPID, and RASIC frameworks:

When to use RACI vs. RAPID vs. RASIC

No hard rule suggests you should use any one of the frameworks in any given situation. Use the one that makes the most sense for your specific project and team dynamic:

Conclusion

Defining clear roles and responsibilities is foundational to successful project management, especially in complex, cross-functional, and multi-stakeholder environments. RACI, RAPID, and RASIC are powerful frameworks that help define roles and responsibilities for task management, offer clear decision-making processes to avoid ambiguities and delays, and create a collaborative environment that ensures smoother execution and delivery.

As a final takeaway:

• RACI is versatile for most project types, providing clear accountability and communication for task management
• RAPID is ideal for decision-driven projects where clarity in decision-making is critical
• RASIC is beneficial in resource-heavy, cross-functional projects requiring added support roles

Featured image source: IconScout

LogRocket generates product insights that lead to meaningful action

LogRocket identifies friction points in the user experience so you can make informed decisions about product and design changes that must happen to hit your goals.

With LogRocket, you can understand the scope of the issues affecting your product and prioritize the changes that need to be made. LogRocket simplifies workflows by allowing Engineering, Product, UX, and Design teams to work from the same data as you, eliminating any confusion about what needs to be done.

Get your teams on the same page — try LogRocket today.