Directly Responsible Individuals (DRI)
What is a directly responsible individual?
Apple coined the term “directly responsible individual” (DRI) to refer to the ultimately accountable for the success or failure of a specific project, initiative, or activity. Originally coined by Apple, this approach ensures clear ownership and eliminates ambiguity about decision-making authority. Key principle: The DRI has final decision-making power but should consult and collaborate with relevant stakeholders to gather input and divide tasks effectively.
Empowering DRIs
- DRIs do not owe explanations for their decisions to avoid analysis paralysis
- They should welcome input from others but are not required to convince or justify their choices
- This prevents projects from “flying under the radar” due to fear of endless explanation cycles
Collaboration
- DRIs must consult with all relevant teams and stakeholders
- They should gather context, input, and feedback before making decisions
- While empowered to decide, they should leverage team expertise and judgment
DRIs and our Values
At the end of the day, it’s about results and efficiency. DRIs work conceptually because they leave no room for ambiguity about who has the final say on all questions that arise within a project or team.
Assigning one, ultimately responsible person to a project might seem to impair our ability to collaborate effectively at first glance, but that’s misleading. The DRI should be wholly invested in their assignment and welcome collaboration in order to succeed. While they’re empowered to make all final decisions, they should know how and when to trust in the experience and judgment of their teams and peers.
Characteristics of a Project DRI
DRIs are most often assigned at the task-level. For example, when building a new product feature the Product Manager is the DRI for the prioritization and the Engineering Manager is the DRI for delivery. As managers of one GitLab team members are most often the DRI for the tasks they accomplish.
The DRI is also part of a team, a team needs to be motivated and aligned on achieving the steps to get to success. The DRI will also be responsible for making sure the team gets there.
Communication and feedback
A DRI should be able to articulate the objectives, check progress and give and receive feedback. This will ensure the DRI can change direction or plan ahead to avoid any setbacks.
At GitLab we communicate and work asynchronously, you can read more about it on this page.
One thing to consider when a DRI needs to give or receive feedback is that they may not be the actual manager of the other members of the team.
Giving or receiving feedback is tough and we have looked at this in our previous Guidance on Feedback Training. See also GitLab’s guide to communicating effectively and responsibly through text.
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI)
Different organizations use different methods of assigning responsibility; one of the most popular is the RACI Matrix, which outlines who the Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed people should be on a decision or project.
GitLab’s implementation of a DRI (Directly Responsible Individual) for decision-making adds some complexity when using the RACI model given the DRI for a given project or workstream would sit the A - Accountable role.
RACI: A framework for clarifying roles and responsibilities
- Responsible: This is the person or people ultimately responsible for the successful completion of a specific task, decision, or project. They are needed for the planning, execution, and completion of a given task.
- Accountable: The person who is ultimately accountable for the completion and success of the task. There should be only one person accountable for each task and it’s often the same as the DRI.
- Consulted: These are individuals whose opinions and expertise are sought and valued before a decision or action is taken. They provide input and feedback, but they are not ultimately responsible for the outcome.
- Informed: These individuals are kept in the loop about the progress and decisions related to a task or project, but they don’t necessarily need to be actively involved in the decision-making process. They are kept informed of the progress and outcome.
This framework helps avoid confusion and ensures that everyone understands their role and level of involvement. It’s a way to distribute responsibility and keep the project moving forward efficiently.
RACI Framework Template
To implement a RACI matrix as part of a new project or workstream, this Google Sheet RACI template provides a simple structure to follow.
Circumstances Requiring the Rare Need for Approvals
There are circumstances where we do require additional approvals or have a decision maker who is not the DRI. It is the responsibility of the DRI / Accountable to recognize the need for this and to continue to move the project forward. Most of these circumstances will happen in instances in which initiatives:
- Involve 3-or-more functions
- Could have a large financial impact
- Could present significant risk to the business
- Have business reputation considerations
- Have multiple success considerations (for instance, increase iACV through a product change AND maintain customer NPS)
DRI, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (DACI)
You may also see DRI, Accountable, Consulted, Informed used in places depending on what a particular team decides to use to define roles & responsibilities.
Examples include:
- A large cross-functional initiative that has significant reputational or financial implications for the GitLab and its users, such as a pricing initiative
- The rollout of a major policy change that requires multiple functions to align on a coordinated response (for example, legal, marketing, finance), such as changes to the Terms of Service
In these instances, another person may own the final decision, but this doesn’t mean that key process steps should be skipped and other key stakeholders shouldn’t be involved in ensuring a successful outcome. If a DRI is not considering key stakeholder feedback, executing without adequately planning for success, and saying, “the E-Group approved this,” it is worth pausing and considering whether key steps are being missed or additional items should be considered. The DRI is still responsible for successful execution once a decision is made. If the DRI disagrees with a decision, it is this person’s responsibility to make a compelling case to the decision maker in order to change the decision maker’s mind. If this can’t be done within a reasonable period of time, the DRI should disagree and commit.
d8a6afc1)
