RunsheetDecision Making

RAPID

ComplexityMedium

Time45-90 min

Participants3-12

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityEstablished

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

RAPID doc template with roles Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide; shared document area; pre-comment threads; decision deadline in calendar.

People / roles

Recommender (develops recommendation, often driver function); Agreer (must agree, often compliance/legal/finance); Performer (implements decision, must confirm feasibility); Input (provides data or expertise, no veto); Decider (one person, final decision).

Pre-read

Question clear; stakeholder map; constraints; previous decisions; known conflicts between roles.

Time needed

45-90 min workshop, plus async lead time of 1-2 weeks

Setup

Create RAPID doc, assign roles with names. Pre-read with recommendation at least 5 business days before meeting so Agreer and Performer have time to review.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which decision does the Decider make based on recommendation, Agreer approval and Performer feasibility?

Flow

Marker: Phase

Step	Duration	Action	Hint
1Phase 1: Clarify question and roles	30 min beforehand	Bound the question. Recommender, Agreer, Performer, Input, Decider with names. Clarify where Agreer veto right lies.	Common error: Agreer role is assigned inflationarily, everyone gets veto. Agreer is only whoever must agree because of mandate (legal, compliance, finance budget).
2Phase 2: Recommender develops recommendation	1-2 weeks	Interview input people, analyze options, formulate one recommendation with rationale. Involve Agreer and Performer early.	Recommender must bring Agreer and Performer into development, not only into meeting. Otherwise meeting collapses through late concerns.
3Phase 3: Pre-read and comments	5 business days	Doc released. Agreer checks approvability. Performer checks feasibility. Inputs add data/expertise. Decider reads.	Agreer does not stay silent. Anyone who does not agree comments in writing before meeting, otherwise it counts as agreement.
4Phase 4: Decision meeting	45-90 min	Recommender presents recommendation. Agreer confirm or name obstacles. Performer confirms feasibility. Decider asks clarification questions and decides.	If Agreer cannot agree: decision blocked, Recommender revises or escalates. Decider cannot overrule Agreer.
5Phase 5: Documentation and implementation	1-2 business days	Decision in doc, Performer takes over with implementation plan, owner and date. Informed are communicated.	If Performer provides no plan after decision, Phase 3 failed. Feasibility was mandatory check.

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Form

RAPID Decision Doc with question, named roles, options, recommendation, Agreer status (approval/conditions), Performer feasibility check, decision with rationale, implementation plan with owner and date, Informed list.

Versioning / ownership

Decision Doc immutable after decision. Revision as new entry with reference. On Agreer change or strategy pivot, explicitly revise Decision Doc, do not change silently.

Tool alternatives

Confluence or Notion page with RAPID template
Atlassian Decision Macro with custom fields
Markdown ADR with RAPID sections
Strategy tools such as Cascade with decision module

rapid-working-template.md

Compact working template for RAPID with role clarity, recommendation, agreement points, and decision log.

RAPID Working Template

Goal

Clarify who recommends, agrees, performs, inputs, and decides.

Context

What decision needs to be made, and why now?

Input

Decision question:
Stakeholders:
Constraints:
Facts and assumptions:

Working area

Recommend:
Agree:
Perform:
Input:
Decide:

Output artifacts

RAPID role map:
Recommendation:
Decision log:

Open questions

Decision / next step

Owner, date, and success signal.

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

rapid-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

RAPID - Strategic shift from DACH focus to DACH+UK (decision 2026-05-18)

Roles

Recommend: @lisa (Head of Strategy)
Agree: @julia (CFO, Budget), @marcus (CRO, Sales Org)
Perform: @anna (VP Engineering), @ben (Head of Marketing)
Input: @philipp (Legal), @maria (Customer Success Lead), 3 UK customer discovery interviews
Decide: @franz (CEO)

Question: Do we expand the target market segment to UK from Q4/2026?

Recommendation (Recommend): Yes, controlled market entry with first UK sales hire from 2026-10-01, marketing pilot from 2026-07-15, engineering localization (language, GBP pricing) in Q3.

Pre-read comments:

@julia: approval conditioned on budget cap of 380k EUR for 12 months.
@marcus: approval, hires only after pilot validation end of Q3.
@anna: feasible, one engineering-team quarter for localization.
@ben: feasible, marketing pilot with two specialists.

Decision (Decide @franz): Recommendation approved with @julia budget cap and @marcus condition on sales hire. Success gates for Q3 end before Phase 2.

Implementation plan:

Localization spec (Owner: @anna, by 2026-06-30).
Marketing pilot plan (Owner: @ben, by 2026-06-14).
UK legal setup (Owner: @philipp, by 2026-07-31).
Success gates review (Owner: @lisa, 2026-09-30).

Informed list is forgotten, employees learn later.

What to do

Communication plan as mandatory follow-up. Channel and timing in doc.

Stop criteria

Done signals checkable in under a minute

Decider unavailable or not authorized; escalate.

Question is tactical or small, DACI is more efficient.

Agreer roles are not clearly mandated, method is politically misused.

Recommender has no time for 1-2-week preparation, method requires this depth.

Org setting does not foster disagree-and-commit culture, Agreer conflicts escalate repeatedly.

Decision must be made in <72 h, RAPID cycle too slow.

Finished the runsheet?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods