The DACI framework, in practice

What DACI stands for

• Driver — one person. Owns the process: frames the question, gathers input, schedules the call, writes it up. Not always the most senior; usually the most invested.
• Approver — one person. Has final say. Their job is to decide, not to do the work. If two people must both approve, you don't have a DACI — you have a negotiation.
• Contributors — a few people. Bring expertise, data, or perspective the Driver needs. They are consulted; they do not vote.
• Informed — everyone affected by the outcome. Told the decision and the reasoning, after the fact. Not asked.

Why it beats "let's discuss"

Open discussion sounds inclusive but quietly hands the decision to the loudest voice in the room. DACI separates input from authority: contributors are heard, but the Approver decides. That single change kills three failure modes at once — endless re-litigation, decision-by-attrition, and the silent veto by whoever owns implementation.

When to reach for DACI

• · The decision is reversible but expensive to redo (architecture, hiring loop, pricing change).
• · More than three people have a legitimate stake.
• · The same topic has come up twice without resolving.
• · You're about to schedule a meeting "to align."

For cheap, reversible calls, skip the framework. For one-way doors, most teams want something heavier — RFCs, written proposals, an explicit dissent process.

A copyable template

# Decision: <one sentence — what are we deciding?>

Driver:        @name
Approver:      @name
Contributors:  @name, @name, @name
Informed:      #channel or list

## Context
Why are we deciding this now? What changes if we don't?

## Options
1. <Option> — pros, cons, cost, who it affects
2. <Option> — pros, cons, cost, who it affects
3. Do nothing — pros, cons, what we accept

## Recommendation
Driver's recommendation and the reasoning in 2–3 lines.

## Decision
<Filled in by Approver. Date it.>

## Follow-ups
- Owner, action, due date

Paste this into a doc, a ticket, or a Slack canvas. The format matters less than the four named roles.

Common ways DACI breaks

• Two Approvers. One of them is actually a Contributor. Pick.
• The Driver is also the Approver. Fine for small calls, dangerous for anything political — you've removed the only check on motivated reasoning.
• Contributors expect a vote. Say it out loud at the start: "I want your input; I'm not counting hands." Then mean it.
• Informed finds out late. Send the writeup the same day. People accept decisions they disagree with; they don't accept being surprised.

How this connects to Enlite

DACI is a role framework — it tells you who decides. Enlite Collab is building the layer underneath: weighted voices, structured input, and a record of why a call was made. The point is the same — separate the signal from the volume, and leave a trail you can revisit.