In a recent piece, DICE versus RACI, I riffed on a recommendation by Clay Parker Jones about using DICE (decide, informed, consulted, executes) as a decision-making framework. Clay wrote,

RACI is vague, hard to use, and reinforces the "what the hell is happening here" status quo. DICE is specific, easy to use, and shines a bright light on dysfunction.

As I commented:

Clay thinks 'responsible' is too vague, and leads to decision-making floating away from those implementing change. ‘Decides’ is crisp. Likewise distinguishing who executes something also makes things more clear than who is accountable.

It seems that others have similar issues with RACI, as reported by Aaron De Smet and colleagues in If we’re so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?:

We recommend a simple yet comprehensive approach for defining decision rights. We call it DARE, which stands for deciders, advisers, recommenders, and executors:

Deciders are the only ones with a vote (unlike the RACI model, which helps determine who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed). If the deciders get stuck, they should jointly agree on how to escalate the decision or figure out a way to move the process along, even if it means agreeing to “disagree and commit.”