Speed Without the Chaos
In designing operating models that genuinely scale, one theme shows up time and again: decision-making. It’s rarely the loudest issue, but often the most limiting. Even with the right structure, poor decision clarity slows things down, work gets stuck, people second-guess, and progress depends too much on who happens to be in the room. That’s why, following on from my last article on operating model design, I wanted to go deeper into the part that often makes the biggest difference: decision rights.
Most delays I see in organisations, large or small, are not technical. They are decision delays. Work piles up in inboxes, approvals bounce between well-meaning leaders, and ‘just to be safe’ becomes a habit. The result is pace without progress: busy teams, restless customers, and a leadership group acting as an accidental bottleneck.
I have come to believe, strongly, that clarity beats heroics. When everyone knows what gets decided, by whom, with what inputs, and by when, flow returns. Risks go down, not up. It sounds simple because it is. The difficulty lies in doing it consistently when the stakes feel high and the calendar is full.
A recent utilities engagement brought this home. Depending on who was on shift, job-pack releases took anywhere between two and five days. Field teams joked that getting a green light required a minor diplomatic summit. We did not add a meeting or a new system. We named one Decider, the Delivery Manager, agreed the inputs, created a simple checklist, and set a 24-hour service level. We logged each call: owner, due, status, rationale. Within two weeks, the median time dropped to eight hours. Nothing dramatic, just clarity, applied.
In another organisation, a design variation had accumulated a seven-signature ritual that looked reassuring but delivered little. The fear, as ever, was that slimming it down would invite risk. We flipped the lens: one accountable Decider, a single Recommender to assemble the case, and two specific inputs, client impact and safety implications. The rule was simple: if the pack is decision-ready, the clock starts; if not, it does not. Most approvals landed inside 48 hours. Escalations fell, and so did the quiet frustration that builds when smart people spend their days chasing initials.
If there is a pattern here, it is this: ambiguity creates drag. When accountability is unclear, good people overcompensate. They copy more people in, call another meeting, seek cover. None of this is malicious; it is rational behaviour in a system that has not clearly said, ‘This is your call.’ You do occasionally hear people admit it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, usually out of frustration, not defiance.
There is also a cultural undertow. Leaders hesitate to delegate, not because they distrust their teams, but because they carry the scars of past surprises. Making decision rights explicit helps on both sides. Teams stop guessing. Leaders stop shadow-deciding. Everyone sees the trade-offs, because the required inputs are clear and repeatable.
I am not dogmatic about frameworks, but language helps. If the challenge is execution: who does what, who is accountable, then RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) is fine. If the choice is directional, go or no-go, then RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide) or DACI (Driver, Approver, Contributor, Informed) focuses attention where it should be: one Decider, clear Inputs, and a Recommender who prepares the ground. The name matters less than using it consistently.
Decision rights don’t require heavyweight systems or new tooling. What matters is clarity and visibility. Often, the simplest place to start is with what’s already in play, a SharePoint list, a Teams tab, or a one-page decision playbook. Begin by mapping the decisions that show up most often, the ones that cause friction, confusion, or delays. For each, define who owns it, what ‘decision-ready’ means, and how fast it should move. Miss the service level and it escalates; meet it and move on. No theatre.
Decision rights may not be glamorous, but they are transformative. When accountability is clear, people breathe out. Middle managers stop acting as couriers. Meetings get shorter. Leaders lead. Risk is managed better, not because it’s avoided, but because it’s understood and owned.
This is not about removing judgement. It’s about enabling speed when speed is safe. If you care about time-to-decision, measure it. If you measure it, publish it. If you publish it, people will improve it. Speed without chaos is possible. It starts with clarity. The rest follows.
By Matt Lord
Matt Lord is a Partner at Skewb.
