In one minute
Name the driver, one approver, contributors and informed parties for a consequential decision.
DACI defines decision roles: Driver coordinates, Approver decides, Contributors advise, Informed receive the outcome. The decision record still needs evidence, a date and an appeal route.
The problem it addresses
Everyone attends the meeting, yet nobody knows who must decide or who has been excluded.
A regional transit operator must decide whether to suspend an automated dispatch rule after a near miss. Safety, operations and vendors disagree.
When to use it
- Use DACI Decision Framework when everyone attends the meeting, yet nobody knows who must decide or who has been excluded.
- The team can examine: A bounded decision, authority mandate, affected groups and evidence deadline.
- A relevant situation is: A regional transit operator must decide whether to suspend an automated dispatch rule after a near miss. Safety, operations and vendors disagree.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Using DACI to legitimise a decision already made or treating informed people as if impact removes their right to challenge.
Inputs required
A bounded decision, authority mandate, affected groups and evidence deadline.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: A bounded decision, authority mandate, affected groups and evidence deadline.
3. Write the decision question and deadline.
State the exact choice, options, deadline and what happens if no decision is made.
4. Assign a driver and one legitimate approver.
Verify the approver's formal authority and availability; the driver organises the process and does not inherit that authority.
5. Invite expertise and affected voices as contributors.
Ask contributors for evidence and dissent, including people exposed to the consequences; identify who must be informed afterward.
6. Compare options with evidence and record dissent.
Compare alternatives against agreed criteria and distinguish missing evidence from disagreement about values.
7. Publish the decision, rationale, owner and review trigger.
Publish a short decision record with the approver, rationale, implementation owner and explicit review or appeal condition.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: Write the decision question and deadline; Assign a driver and one legitimate approver; Invite expertise and affected voices as contributors; Compare options with evidence and record dissent; Publish the decision, rationale, owner and review trigger.
Interactive example
Scenario: A regional transit operator must decide whether to suspend an automated dispatch rule after a near miss. Safety, operations and vendors disagree.
Worked answer: Give the safety executive decision authority, appoint an incident driver, consult drivers and engineers, record the evidence and set a rapid review after containment.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Publish the decision, rationale, owner and review trigger.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Using DACI to legitimise a decision already made or treating informed people as if impact removes their right to challenge.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Using DACI to legitimise a decision already made or treating informed people as if impact removes their right to challenge.
Related tools
References
- DACI Decision Framework — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
- Independent practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-09-28.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.