Framework 08 / 12
Assign decision rights, ownership and review rules
Who must make which decision, when, and with what information?
Decision
Establish responsibilities and the decision path.
Distinguish who executes, who decides, who contributes and when escalation is required. This step produces reviewable commitments and flags information that remains too fragile to justify a trade-off.
01RACI
02Decision matrix
03Review calendar
04Escalation rules
Original chart · SQ-37
Measure the latency of plan decisions
Governance is also assessed by the time required to make a decision. Excessive latency consumes roadmap slack.
Illustrative dataset of 24 decisions made during one quarter.
- 01Timestamp
Measure the request, dossier completeness and decision dates.
- 02Segment
Compare latency by type, threshold and decision body.
- 03Diagnose
Separate waiting for information from waiting for a decision-maker.
- 04Reduce
Adjust thresholds, cadence or delegation.
Median latency by decision type
Scope changes exceed the target time and consume a median five days of slack.
| Decision | Volume | Median | Target | Dominant cause |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reallocation <€25k | 8 | 2 d | 3 d | Compliant |
| Reallocation >€25k | 4 | 8 d | 7 d | Incomplete dossier |
| Scope change | 5 | 12 d | 5 d | Decision-maker unavailable |
| Milestone shift | 4 | 4 d | 5 d | Compliant |
| Initiative stop | 3 | 9 d | 5 d | Late sunk costs |
01Delegating minor scope changes reduces the main bottleneck.
02Major reallocation dossiers must include a recommended option before scheduling.
03Latency must be monitored as a roadmap risk, not only as an irritation.
Fictitious data. Measurement starts when the dossier is declared complete to distinguish preparation from decision.
Minimum controls
What the plan must make visible.
Status, evidence, owner and next review date.
Status, evidence, owner and next review date.
Status, evidence, owner and next review date.
Status, evidence, owner and next review date.
Related resources