Accountability without authority in a matrix programme
A national digital identity programme is delivered by a matrix team of 46 people from four directorates. The project manager is accountable for delivery, but each specialist reports to a line manager who sets priorities. The sponsor chairs a steering committee that meets every six weeks and receives a status pack two days before. A senior developer was reassigned to another priority for three weeks without the PM's knowledge, delaying an integration milestone. The team's retrospectives were stopped because 'they take time from delivery'. A stakeholder map last updated eight months ago omits a union representing contact-centre staff who will operate the service; the union has now written to the minister. Morale is low and two people have left. The PM has been told to 'show stronger leadership' and to use a RACI chart to fix accountability.
1. Analyse the authority, accountability and governance problems. Why is a RACI chart alone unlikely to fix them?
Read the worked answer
The programme has accountability concentrated on the PM while authority over people and priorities sits with line managers. That is a structural conflict, not a personality deficit. The PM cannot make credible delivery commitments when 46 people can be reassigned without visibility. The steering committee cadence of six weeks is too slow for integration decisions, and the sponsor appears to receive status rather than actively govern trade-offs. Stopping retrospectives removes the main mechanism for team learning and early warning.
A RACI chart can clarify who is responsible, accountable, consulted and informed for activities, but it does not allocate people, set priority rules, create escalation paths or change culture. It will not stop a line manager taking a developer if the operating model allows it. It may even harden blame by implying that accountability is a document rather than a negotiated system of decision rights and resource commitments.
The PM needs governance redesign: explicit decision rights and thresholds, resource commitments agreed with line managers, a faster escalation route, and a sponsor who resolves cross-directorate conflicts. RACI can be one artifact within that, alongside working agreements and decision records, but it cannot substitute for authority and sponsorship.
2. Recommend how to structure the team and governance for faster decisions without undermining line management.
Read the worked answer
Start with a clear team design. Define the programme's outcomes and the capabilities needed, then agree named people and percentage allocations with each line manager for a fixed period. Establish a working agreement covering how reassignment requests are raised, how priority conflicts are escalated and how the PM is informed. Line managers retain professional development and capability ownership; the PM gains delivery priority for committed time. This is a matrix, so the interfaces must be explicit rather than assumed.
Governance should be tiered. A delivery board or design authority with named delegates can meet weekly or as needed to decide integration, architecture and cross-directorate trade-offs within thresholds. The steering committee should focus on outcomes, risk and escalated trade-offs, not receive detailed status. The sponsor should chair and actively decide. Define escalation service levels so a resource conflict is resolved in days, not at the next six-week meeting.
Team-level practices matter. Restart retrospectives with a clear purpose and visible actions, and create psychological safety so bad news travels early. Use decision records and a simple responsibility model for key interfaces; RACI may help for specific processes, but pair it with decision rights and capacity transparency. Publish a single capacity and priority view so reassignments are visible. The PM's leadership should be judged on making the system work, not on absorbing impossible constraints silently.
3. What should the PM do about stakeholder engagement and the union?
Read the worked answer
The union is a stakeholder with high influence and legitimate operational interest, not a communications afterthought. The outdated stakeholder map is a governance failure: contact-centre staff will operate the service, so their work design, training, accessibility and transition experience are part of the outcome. A letter to the minister indicates that informal engagement has already failed.
The PM should update the stakeholder analysis with power, interest, impact and attitude, then agree an engagement approach with the sponsor. For the union, that means early, structured dialogue: brief on the programme outcomes, ask about operational concerns, involve contact-centre representatives in service design and transition planning, and establish a regular forum with minutes. The PM should not promise decisions outside governance, but should be transparent about what can change and what cannot. A joint risk and issues log can capture concerns such as job design, workload, accessibility and service continuity.
This also protects delivery. Late union engagement can become a schedule and reputational risk, and operational staff often identify failure modes that the project team misses. The PM should report the engagement status and residual stakeholder risk to the steering committee, not treat the ministerial letter as a one-off communications problem. Stakeholder engagement is continuous, not a map produced once.