Who decides what about your technology, in writing, with a board-ready RACI.

Technology decisions in your business are being made. The question is by whom, with what information, and with what accountability. When that is unclear, the same questions get revisited, vendors carry more weight than they should, and the board hears different things from different people.

The Review documents the answer — current state, target state, and the work to close the gap.

That is what this engagement is.

€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a board-cycle presentation.

Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. No product recommendations influenced by suppliers.

Start a Conversation Start with the Technology Control Assessment — €4,950

Decision Rights for Technology Review infographic using an air traffic control metaphor to illustrate the difference between perceived governance and actual decision-making authority. The image is divided into three vertical sections. On the left, a modern air traffic control tower oversees aircraft following clear, non-intersecting flight paths. This represents the impression of effective technology governance, where authority is clearly defined, decision rights are documented, governance forums are aligned, decisions are recorded, and accountability is understood. Supporting messages emphasise clear authority, defined decision rights, aligned governance structures, transparent decision-making, and accountable outcomes. Aircraft move smoothly under the direction of a single control function, symbolising technology decisions being made once, by the right people, using the right information.

The centre section represents the Decision Rights Review itself. A large clipboard symbolises the review process, which examines how technology decisions are actually made within an organisation. Supporting text explains that the review documents current-state decision rights, identifies governance gaps, designs a target-state governance model, establishes roles and responsibilities, defines governance forums and escalation thresholds, and produces a board-ready RACI structure. The review acts as the bridge between perception and reality, transforming informal or inconsistent decision-making into a documented governance framework.

The right-hand section depicts the lived reality found in many organisations. Multiple aircraft occupy congested airspace with overlapping and intersecting flight paths. No single authority is visibly controlling the environment. Warning callouts identify common governance failures including unclear authority, overlapping governance forums, excessive vendor influence, undocumented decisions, repeated re-litigation of previously made decisions, and lack of accountability. Aircraft appear to receive conflicting instructions, symbolising technology decisions being challenged, revisited, delayed, or made without clear ownership. A control tower is visible in the background but has little apparent influence over the chaotic environment.

The image illustrates the central premise of the Decision Rights for Technology Review: the difference between the impression of clear technology decision-making and the reality of overlapping authority, undocumented decisions, conflicting recommendations, and decisions that fail to stick. The review documents who actually decides what today, establishes who should decide what tomorrow, and provides the governance structures, decision thresholds, escalation paths, and accountability model required to create a board-ready technology decision framework.

Why clients commission a review

A Decision Rights Review is usually triggered by a specific moment. Most often, one of these:

The board has been receiving conflicting technology recommendations and the source of authority is unclear.
A significant vendor contract was awarded and no one is sure who actually decided.
A major technology decision is upcoming and the process for making it is undefined.
A new CTO or CIO is being appointed and their decision rights relative to the executive team need establishing.
A merger or operating-model change has duplicated decision-making and the structures need rationalising.
Recurring technology meetings produce decisions that do not stick or get re-litigated weeks later.
A regulatory event requires documented evidence of decision-making and accountability for technology choices.
The business has grown and the original informal decision-making structure no longer fits its scale.

If one of these is the position you are in, the Review is built for it.

Who this is for

Owners, MDs, and CEOs whose technology decisions have grown beyond what informal governance can support.

Boards establishing or refreshing technology committee terms of reference, decision thresholds, and escalation paths.

Newly-appointed CTOs and CIOs whose decision rights are unclear and need establishing before the first significant call.

Operating partners and investment committees post-investment, where decision rights need formalising for portfolio reporting.

Who this is not for

Pre-revenue businesses or technology startups where formal decision rights would slow rather than help.

Businesses where the actual question is architectural — for that, see the Architecture Review.

Owners wanting validation of existing committee structures. The Review will tell you where the structures are not working.

Org design or HR work. Decision rights are about authority and accountability, not reporting lines or role profiles.

What you receive

The Review documents how technology decisions are made today, how they should be made tomorrow, and what to change to get there. Five artefacts, delivered together.

Decision Rights for Technology Review deliverables infographic showing a board-ready governance pack containing five interconnected outputs. An executive document folder is opened on a boardroom table, revealing five tabbed sections representing the deliverables produced by the review. The first section, Current-State Decision Map, documents how technology decisions are actually made today, identifying who exercises authority over vendor selection, architecture, change approval, risk acceptance, budget allocation, and major technology initiatives. The second section, Target-State RACI, defines future decision rights by identifying who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed for key technology decisions. The third section, Governance Forums, describes the boards, committees, steering groups, and governance structures required to support effective decision-making, including their purpose, membership, meeting cadence, and authority. The fourth section, Escalation Paths and Thresholds, defines when decisions move between governance forums, what triggers escalation, and what evidence is required for approval. The fifth section, Implementation Roadmap and Presentation, provides a phased adoption plan together with board-level recommendations and a presentation explaining the proposed governance model.

The image communicates that the Decision Rights for Technology Review does not provide software recommendations or organisational redesign. Instead, it delivers a complete governance framework for technology decision-making, documenting current authority structures, defining future accountability, establishing governance forums, creating escalation mechanisms, and providing a practical roadmap for implementation. Together, the five deliverables provide leadership with a clear, written answer to who decides what, on what evidence, with what authority, and through which governance structures.

A current-state decision map. Who actually decides what, in practice, today. Vendor selection, architecture, change approval, risk acceptance, budget — each named against the person, group, or forum that decides.

A target-state RACI. Who should decide what, with what consultation, with what information. Drafted to your business, not lifted from a template.

Forum design. The boards, committees, and steering groups that need to exist — and the ones that do not. Each with a purpose, a membership, a cadence, and a decision threshold.

Escalation paths and thresholds. When something moves from one forum to another, what triggers it, and what evidence the next forum needs to act.

An implementation roadmap and presentation. What to do first, second, third to move from current to target. A board-cycle session to walk through the recommendations.

Typical outcomes

Most Reviews result in one of four conclusions.

Decision rights are sound; the work is enforcement. The structures exist and work. The roadmap focuses on tightening adherence rather than redesigning.

Specific gaps are identified. Particular decisions — vendor approval, change governance, risk acceptance — have unclear ownership. The Review names them and the structures to fix.

Significant restructuring is needed. Decision-making is fragmented across forums that overlap, conflict, or do not exist. A new governance structure is proposed.

Critical exposure: no accountability, no decision record. Material decisions have been made without traceable authority. Immediate remediation indicated.

The Review tells you which of these your business is in, and what to do about it.

How the Review runs

Three to four weeks, in four phases.

Week one — decision archaeology. What significant technology decisions have been made in the last twenty-four months. How they were made, by whom, with what evidence.

Week two — interviews. Board, executive, technical leadership, key vendors where relevant. Where the formal structure differs from the lived reality, we identify both.

Week three — target state design. RACI, forum structures, escalation thresholds. Designed to your business, your scale, your regulatory environment.

Week four — presentation and adoption planning. The board-cycle session. Decisions confirmed about which recommendations to implement and in what order.

Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your board that you have not read first.

What this is not

Organisational design. Decision rights are about authority and accountability, not reporting lines.

Role and job description work. We document who decides what, not what each role does.

Regulatory governance certification. The Review can inform one, but it does not substitute for one.

Implementation of new committee structures. We design and recommend; you decide and implement.

Decision rights are not a process improvement. They are a control.

The purpose of the Review is not to design new committees. It is to give leadership a clear, written answer to: who decides what, on what evidence, with what authority — so the business can stop re-litigating the same decisions and start making different ones.

Proof

References available on request. Anonymised excerpts from prior reviews available on request.

What happens next

Start a Conversation

Thirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing. You decide whether to proceed. No proposal is sent unless you ask for one.

Start with the Technology Control Assessment — €4,950

A scored framework reading in five working days, with governance as one of the sixteen pillars assessed. The right starting point if you want to see where governance sits in the broader picture before committing to a focused Review.

For a comprehensive framework review, see Technology Control Review.