RACI analysis is now a common management tool, for a couple of reasons:
It’s detailed but simple in concept: you just get to decide who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed about the main tasks involved in a project or workflow
It’s actually very useful, sometimes. For example to bring up interesting discussions between team members or managers, and resolve conflicts of authority
Sounds great - so what’s the problem?
I have seen companies where a RACI matrix creates as many issues as it solves:
A couple of top-level managers will agree on a RACI matrix, without sharing it to the rest of the team, which creates a disconnect
They later share the matrix with the team, and it comes as a surprise to everyone involved: what they are meant to do, and how, has been decided on their behalf
It is impractical to involve a whole team or department in defining the RACI matrix, and anybody not involved will feel (validly) excluded and disenfranchised
Once defined, the matrix tends to become static and quickly out of date: how can any individual modify it when it affects a whole team or department?
All of this effectively boils down to one core issue with the RACI matrix: it is top-down management.
Not only does it dictate who does what, but also how they are going to do it: each team member is given some accountability, but is also told who they should work with, who they should consult and who they should inform. How is that making them truly empowered and genuinely accountable?
So my take on RACI is two-fold
By all means, if a team is in any way dysfunctional, do a one-off round of RACI analysis to understand what’s going on and align leaders
But going forwards, limit yourself to agreeing with team members on what key tasks they are accountable for, and let them decide (and later, evolve) who they want to consult with or inform - with your help if they need it