I am trying to define a RACI and coordinate with my colleagues the roles and responsibilities for Application Engineering vs Application Development. Can anyone share how they have done this?
Sort By:
Oldest
Director of Project Management3 months ago
Something I have always recommended business groups do is create group charters for who they are, what they do, and how they provide the support they do to the business. Then understanding which processes in the SDLC they perform in lead roles. Once we break down who does what within the value chain, we can better understand where we slot the Rs and the other others in the RACI.VP of Engineering in Insurance (except health)3 months ago
I have never done this before. I have collaborated on an engagment model - what we do (i.e products and services), partners and customers, and collaboration processes (i.e. what we lead/ own and when, what we partner on in a supporting capacity and what the other stakeholders lead/own). In that way it's similar to RACI although we try to avoid using it explicitly. We try to focos on outcomes rather that activities. That seems to make it easier although it does take work. The term we have adopted in Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) pioneered by Google.Director of IT3 months ago
Initially, we developed a RACI document specifically assigned to developers who are primary/secondary and supporting the system. After some time realizing it was a detailed responsibility/assignment document. Each developer is assigned to a solution to support based on their expertise. However, a true RACI document is a data governance document. You can start with your current company's organizational chart. The organizational chart or structure of your department will organically describe who is responsible for a system or area within your department and how it is supported throughout the life of the system. Most application developers will be custodians or system administrators of the solution they support.Responsible (R): The Data Stewards and Data Custodians are responsible for researching and proposing data definitions for data elements.
Accountable (A): The Data Governance Co-Chairs are accountable for approving the proposed data definitions to ensure alignment with the institution’s overall data strategy.
Consulted (C): Data Trustees are consulted to provide input on how the proposed definitions align with their specific processes.
Informed (I): All relevant stakeholders are kept informed about the progress and final decisions of data definitions.