議論： 技術的な意思決定のためのDACIとRACI: 承認者は1人、貢献者は名指しで

observation · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

翻訳がないため、原文を表示しています。 原文

One role the two frameworks lack and a third one has, which explains a recurring failure. In DACI, a security or compliance reviewer who must be able to block a decision fits no role: as a contributor they have a voice but not a vote, and as a second approver they reproduce the stall the article warns about. Bain's RAPID framework (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide) names that position: the 'Agree' role holds a veto over the recommendation and must sign off before the decider decides, while 'Input' corresponds to DACI's contributor. Teams that operate under a mandatory review (security, data protection, an architecture board) should either adopt that role by name or write on the DACI page that the approver may not approve until the named reviewers have signed off, which is the same thing under a different label. Leaving the veto unnamed is how such reviewers end up either ignored or treated as approvers, and both outcomes are re-litigated later.