An FPM critique: Why the RACI Matrix won’t solve your accountability problems

We’ve all been there: midway through a project, accountability is slipping, and someone says, “Didn’t we define this in the RACI matrix?”. But instead of solving the problem, the RACI often obscures the real issues, reinforcing hierarchies rather than fostering genuine accountability. 

In this blog post, we take a critical look at the RACI matrix through a Feminist Project Management (FPM) lens, exploring its limitations, the power dynamics it upholds, and how we can rethink accountability in more feminist ways.

What is the RACI matrix?

A RACI matrix is a widely used project management tool designed to clarify roles and responsibilities within a team. It defines who is Responsible (completing the task), Accountable (ensuring the task is completed and having the final say), Consulted (providing guidance or expertise), and Informed (kept up to date on progress). Typically, a RACI matrix is created at the beginning of a project and referred to throughout, aiming to streamline communication, reduce role overlap, and improve efficiency. In theory, it provides structure and transparency, but does it truly create accountability?

The problem with the RACI matrix

Although the origins of the RACI matrix are unclear, it is believed to have emerged in the 1950s from Western corporate environments (source). Many project managers use it in different contexts- from corporates to charities- and its use is so automatic that we rarely stop to consider whether the RACI really resolves the problems it set out to.

Despite its widespread use, the RACI matrix is not without its flaws. While it promises clarity and accountability, its rigid structure often fails to reflect the complexities of real-world projects, especially in dynamic, collaborative, and feminist spaces. Even variations of the RACI framework tend to replicate the same underlying limitations, raising important questions about its effectiveness and inclusiveness.

The problem with the RACI matrix isn’t just about clarity, it’s about power. While it claims to define accountability, it doesn’t explain or define how accountability should be enacted within a team. By assigning responsibility to individuals without addressing power-sharing, the RACI risks reinforcing existing hierarchies rather than fostering true collective ownership and collaboration. Does having one person “Accountable” ensure meaningful engagement, or does it simply centralise decision-making without redistributing power? In FPM, accountability isn’t about control, it’s about relationships, reciprocity, and mutual responsibility.

RACI also assumes a linear, top-down decision-making process, leaving little room for shared, rotational, or participatory leadership. It makes power structures explicit but fails to challenge them, embedding corporate, hierarchical ways of working that often exclude feminist, decolonial, and collective approaches to collaboration. What’s missing is an understanding of the invisible labour that sustains projects: who is managing relationships, doing the coordination, or holding space for difficult conversations? These roles, often performed by women, are rarely named in the matrix, perpetuating the undervaluing of care work. Whilst the RACI assigns tasks and decision making powers, it does not centre care and there is potential for staff using the RACI to become overwhelmed by workload. Furthermore, the RACI does not offer space for discussions around manageable or sustainable ways of working. 

Beyond structure, RACI fails to acknowledge intersectionality. It assigns roles without considering the diverse experiences, identities, and perspectives within a team. Those most affected by a project’s outcomes, whether community members, grassroots organisers, or informal contributors, are often left without a defined role, making their contributions invisible.

Replacing the RACI through a feminist alternative

Rather than relying on rigid frameworks like RACI, FPM invites us to rethink accountability as a relational, evolving process that needs further exploration and discussion when working as a team. This means questioning who holds power, how decisions are made, and whose labour is recognised. A feminist approach to accountability centres care, reciprocity, and shared responsibility, acknowledging that true accountability isn’t about assigning blame but about fostering collective commitment.

For teams that still want to use the RACI, modifying it with an explicit focus on power sharing and care can make it more inclusive. Regular check-ins to reassess roles, discussing what accountability actually means for each member of the team, incorporating co-leadership models, and naming invisible labour can help distribute accountability more equitably. Some projects may not need a structured tool like RACI at all, instead, they can explore more flexible alternatives such as feminist decision-making frameworks (like the Partos tool) or radical accountability exercises used in feminist movements (like Feminist Co-Leadership). The goal is to move beyond bureaucratic control towards meaningful, co-created accountability that supports all the people involved in the project.

We can do better than the RACI

From a FPM perspective, the RACI matrix is often incompatible with creating truly equitable and collaborative project environments. While it aims to create clarity, it often reinforces existing hierarchies and overlooks the invisible labour that sustains projects. Using the RACI can in fact act as a smoke screen to obscure conversations around accountability, because by using it we think we’ve already solved the issue. However by rethinking accountability through power-sharing, care, and collective decision-making, we can build more inclusive and transformative ways of working. 

How has the RACI worked (or not) for you? Have you explored feminist alternatives? We’d love to hear your experiences and reflections in the comments section.