A framework for better decisions

Page under construction.

</aside>

Decision making in government is kind of like a Rube Goldberg machine. Authority runs both up and down the hierarchy, while influence often runs sideways: across agencies, programs, and stakeholders. For example, agencies seek input from the public with notice-and-comment periods, town halls, and listening sessions. Then internally, they process that information and share it across departments, offices, or entire bureaus. Coordinating across budget, legal, risk management, program offices. Not to mention political pressures – or outside influences.

The result is a tangle: decisions take too long, accountability is murky, and too many voices drown out clarity.

During my time in federal government, I sought to improve decision-making. Many organizations try to solve this with RACI charts (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed). But as I discovered, RACI often describes who is “in the room” rather than who truly drives a decision. I sought out to understand a better way to make decisions, and I landed on RAPID (developed by Bain & Company). And while it won’t solve the messy decision-making processes inside government, it can certainly help.

What is RAPID?

RAPID assigns five distinct roles to a decision: Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide. Together, they cut through confusion by clarifying who does what.

Recommend: The person or team who makes the proposal and drives the process.
Agree: Those whose sign-off is essential for the decision to move forward (for example, legal or finance).
Perform: The people who will carry out the decision once made.
Input: Experts or stakeholders who shape the recommendation with their perspectives.
Decide: The single authority who makes the final call and commits the organization.

Note that RAPID is a memorable acronym, but its letters are out of order. In practice, the tool works like I→R→A→D→P (but IRADP isn’t memorable, is it?)

</aside>

Why is it helpful?

This structure works because it separates two things that often get blurred: the right to be heard and the right to decide. In my experience, too often government agencies get stuck in a state of consensus building. Everyone can contribute input, but only one role – the Decider – holds the final say. That distinction keeps decisions from stalling in endless consensus-seeking.

For public leaders, RAPID creates a common taxonomy and approach to decision-making. It allows bureaucracies to still follow a complex stakeholder engagement process,

It allows an executive to see: who is recommending this? Who had input? Who signed signed off/agreed?

This surfaces blindspots. For example, X office wasn’t engaged. Or Y stakeholder was omitted.
In practice: bake RAPID into