The authority matrix

A key characteristic of a process is that all related activities need not necessarily be limited to one specific organizational unit. Configuration Management process activities, for example, can be conducted in departments such as computer operation s, system programming, Application Management, Network Management, Systems Development and even non-IT departments like procurement, warehouse or accounting. Since services, processes and their component activities run through an entire organization, the individual activities should be mapped to the role s defined above. The roles and activities are coordinated by process manager s. Once detailed procedure s and work instructions have been developed, an organization must map the defined roles and the activities of the process to its existing staff. Clear definitions of accountability and responsibility are CSFs for any improvement activity. Without this, roles and responsibilities within the new process can be confusing, and individuals will revert to ‘the way we’ve always done it’ before the new procedures were put in place.

To assist with this task an authority matrix is often used within organizations indicating roles and responsibilities in relation to processes and activities. While there are many variations of the authority matrix, the RACI model, also supported by COBIT, is explained in Table 6.9.

R	responsibility – correct execution of process and activities
A	accountability – ownership of quality, and end result of process
C	consulted – involvement through input of knowledge and information
I	informed – receiving information about process execution and quality

Table 6.9 RACI authority matrix

Using the RACI model as an example there is only one person accountable for an activity, although several people may be responsible for executing parts of the activity. In this model, accountable means end-to-end accountability for the process. Accountability should remain with the same person for all activities of a process.

It is important to understand the distinction between a formal function within an organization and the process roles that the function is expected to carry out. A formal function may fulfil more than one specific Service Management role and carry out activities relating to more than one process. For example, a formal function ‘network administrator’ is ‘Responsible’ for carrying out ‘ Incident Management ’ as well as ‘Capacity Management’ activities. Although the network administrator may report to a functional line manager, he or she is also responsible for carrying out activities for the Service Desk and Capacity Management process owner s.

Developing an authority matrix can be a tedious and time-consuming exercise but it’s a crucially important one. The authority matrix clarifies to all involved which activities they are expected to fulfil, as well as identifying any gaps in service delivery and responsibilities. It is especially helpful in clarifying the staffing model necessary for improvement.

Experience teaches us that using an authority matrix helps with two major activities that are often overlooked or hard to identify. One is that all the ‘Rs’ on an RACI matrix typically represent potential OLA opportunities. The second is that identifying roles that must be kept informed helps to expose communication and workflow paths. This can be very helpful when defining the communication procedure s in the CSI process.

Potential problem s with the RACI model:

• Having more than one person accountable for a process means that in practice no one is accountable
• Delegation of responsibility or accountability without necessary authority
• Focus on matching processes and activities with departments
• Incorrect division/combination of function s; conflicting agendas or goals
• Combination of responsibility for closely-related processes, such as Incident Management, Problem Management, Configuration Management, Change Management and Release Management.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02