Move from decision bottlenecks to roles, rights, escalation paths, and documented decisions.
A governance setup with decision types, role model, escalation, and decision log.
You can decide which roles model and escalation path applies to recurring decisions.
Apply governance to real decision types, maintain decision log, and refine after first cases.
Who recommends, provides input, must agree, decides once, and performs this specific decision?
Decision Rights Mapping makes visible which decision types exist and where rights are unclear.
For complex decision types, a concrete role model is then chosen.
Who recommends, must agree, provides input, decides and executes the decision?
RAPID separates Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide and suits complex cross-team decisions.
The RAPID model is then operationalized for concrete decisions or lighter cases.
Who drives this decision, who decides, who provides input and who needs to know the result?
DACI makes driver, approver, contributors, and informed manageable for concrete decisions.
Open risks, assumptions, issues, and dependencies then become controllable.
Which open Risks, Assumptions, Issues, and Dependencies threaten the next commitment, and who will do what by when?
The RAID Log keeps risks, assumptions, issues, and dependencies visible with ownership.
The log becomes a recurring governance routine and decision support.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Set subject, evidence, roles, flow, and review.
# Decision Framing Workshop: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
- **Roles:** Decision owner · key stakeholders · domain/data experts · facilitator · scribe
- **Advance information:** Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
- **Overall time needed:** 120–180 minutes plus pre-interviews where scope is contested.
- **Setup:** Prepare a workspace with Decision · Scope · Objectives · Options · Evidence; separate example from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Decision: Decision statement
- Clarify mandate and decision owner; interview stakeholders about the decision, boundaries, interests, and contested assumptions.
- Decision mandate, stakeholder and scope map, objectives, alternatives, uncertainties, evidence sources, and decision log
#### Scope: Scope map
- Decision statement
#### Objectives: Objective hierarchy
- Scope map
#### Options: Alternative space
- Objective hierarchy
#### Evidence: Evidence plan
- Alternative space
## Decision Framing Workshop · working structure
| Frame field | Working question | Fictional content | Owner/source | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Decision | | | | |
| Scope | | | | |
| Objectives | | | | |
| Alternatives | | | | |
| Uncertainty | | | | |
- **Decision:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Scope:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Objectives:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Alternatives:** Add evidence and rationale.
- **Uncertainty:** Add evidence and rationale.
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference · original teaching example](https://www.sdg.org/en/decision-quality)
## Decision: Decision statement
Expected artifact: Decision statement
Clarify decision owner, choice statement, date, and downstream decision it enables.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the statement contain a concrete choice and empowered owner?
## Scope: Scope map
Expected artifact: Scope map
Mark in/out, horizon, affected groups, fixed boundaries, and interfaces.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are contested boundaries visible as decisions or assumptions?
## Objectives: Objective hierarchy
Expected artifact: Objective hierarchy
Derive fundamental objectives, measures, and red lines from stakeholder perspectives.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are objectives independent of preferred solutions and free of double counting?
## Options: Alternative space
Expected artifact: Alternative space
Phrase status quo and distinct feasible alternatives at the right decision level.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are at least two real actions and status quo comparable?
## Evidence: Evidence plan
Expected artifact: Evidence plan
Set key uncertainties, tipping values, sources, owners, and decision process; approve frame.
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is it clear which uncertainty can change the choice and who resolves it by when?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/decision-framing-workshop/run-sheet
Plan RAID Log with real scope, suitable roles, and a clear decision objective.
# RAID Log: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Establish and review the practice
Time: 45 minutes initially; 15–30 minutes per review
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** RAID table with stable IDs, initiative plan, risk register, discovery assumptions, issue list, dependency commitments, and escalation calendar.
- **Roles:** Delivery lead · scribe · item owners · escalation decision maker
- **Advance information:** Consolidate existing lists, mark duplicates, and highlight overdue items before review.
- **Overall time needed:** 45 minutes initially; 15–30 minutes per review
- **Setup:** Display four type definitions and required fields: ID, statement, consequence, owner, action, date, and status.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Rules: Define RAID types and required fields
- Initiative scope
- Governance and escalation rules
- Existing lists
#### Capture: Write precise entries
- Discovery, planning, and delivery findings
- Risks, open assumptions, current problems
- External commitments and interfaces
#### Control: Assign owner and next action
- Qualified entries
- Responsibilities
- Decision and escalation paths
#### Review: Review changes and transitions
- Current RAID log
- New evidence and delivery status
- Review decisions
## RAID Log
| RAID ID | R/A/I/D | Statement · consequence | Owner · date | Action · evidence | Status · trigger |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| D-07 | | | | | |
- **D-07:** External sandbox
Choose exactly one type per item and set a verifiable next step.
[UK Government Gate 2 Review: Delivery Strategy](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gate-review-2-delivery-strategy/gate-2-review-delivery-strategy)
## Rules: Define RAID types and required fields
Expected artifact: RAID convention
Type rules · required fields · status · cadence
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can every item be assigned to exactly one type?
## Capture: Write precise entries
Expected artifact: Qualified entries
ID · type · statement · consequence · source
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do grammar and follow-up fit the type?
## Control: Assign owner and next action
Expected artifact: Controllable log
Action · owner · date · status · escalation
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each type have the correct follow-up?
## Review: Review changes and transitions
Expected artifact: Updated RAID log
Status · transition · decision · closure evidence
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is every change dated and justified?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/raid-log/run-sheet