Should we use DACI or RAPID?

It depends on your coordination problem. Use DACI for operational velocity when decisions need to move quickly and roles need clarity. Use RAPID for institutional complexity where decisions in one area create risk in another and require explicit stakeholder sign-off. The choice depends on whether your bottleneck is speed or risk management.

Why do frameworks fail despite being documented?

Frameworks fail due to shallow execution. The framework is documented, roles are assigned, but the organization returns to making decisions the way it always has. Without instrumentation to show whether the framework was actually followed, it becomes a reference document rather than an operating system. Fake agreement persists, objections stay silent, and decisions reopen regardless of the framework used.

What is decision reliability infrastructure?

Decision reliability infrastructure instruments the coordination layer to show whether decision frameworks are actually working. It audits whether closure occurred, detects fake agreement, validates whether roles functioned as designed, and reveals whether decisions are holding or reopening. It completes the stack: frameworks define the process, instrumentation shows whether the process produced decisions that hold.

Can Growth Wise replace DACI or RAPID?

No. Growth Wise doesn't replace decision frameworks—it instruments whether they're working. DACI and RAPID define who owns decisions and what process to follow. Growth Wise shows whether that process achieved closure and whether the decision held. They're complementary layers. Frameworks without instrumentation can't detect shallow execution. Instrumentation without frameworks has no structure to measure against.

Beyond DACI, RAPID, and SPADE: How Decision Reliability Infrastructure Completes the Stack

The market for strategic decision-making frameworks is projected to grow from $8.09 billion in 2025 to $9.68 billion in 2026. This growth is not driven by a desire for better meetings. It's driven by the need to engineer decision reliability in an era of data overload.

Organizations are moving away from consensus-based cultures—which dilute accountability—toward structured architectures that define exactly who owns the "kill switch" on a decision. The demand is clear. The frameworks exist. Yet most operations leaders have experienced this: the framework is documented, the roles are assigned, and the same decisions still reopen.

The problem is not the framework. The problem is shallow execution. The gap between "we have DACI" and "DACI is preventing decision churn" is the gap that decision reliability infrastructure fills.

The Framework Landscape: Four Categories

Decision frameworks operate across four functional layers, each solving a different coordination problem.

1. Role-Based Frameworks (Clarity & Authority)

These frameworks solve the "diffusion of responsibility" problem—where everyone feels responsible, so no one acts.

DACI (Driver, Approver, Contributors, Informed)

Core Function: Operational momentum and project velocity

Mechanism: Separates the Driver (project manager who pushes the process) from the Approver (the single individual with the final vote)

Best Use Case: Product development and SaaS teams where keeping a timeline is critical

Why It Works: Prevents bottlenecking by clarifying that the person doing the work is distinct from the person signing off

RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide)

Core Function: Managing institutional complexity and regulatory risk

Mechanism: Distinct from DACI, RAPID includes an "Agree" role—stakeholders with veto power (often Legal or Finance) who must sign off before a proposal reaches the Decider

Best Use Case: Global enterprises or highly regulated sectors (Banking, Defense) where a decision in one silo creates risk in another

Critical Weakness: If the "Agree" role is applied too broadly, it creates bureaucratic gridlock

2. High-Stakes & Accountability Frameworks

These models replace consensus with consultation, ensuring rigor for irreversible choices.

SPADE (Setting, People, Alternatives, Decide, Explain)

Core Function: "Type 1" (irreversible) strategic decisions

Mechanism: Defines the "What, When, and Why" with extreme precision (Setting), then requires the decision-maker to broadcast a one-page summary of the rationale and rejected alternatives (Explain)

Philosophy: "Consult maximally, decide individually"—rejecting the dilution of group consensus

Best Use Case: Strategic shifts or hard decisions (entering a new market, major pivots)

Amazon's One-Way vs. Two-Way Doors

Core Function: Velocity and risk triage

Mechanism: Classifies decisions as Two-Way Doors (reversible, delegated) or One-Way Doors (irreversible, require senior analysis)

Metric Impact: Amazon achieves feature launch cycles 40% faster than industry averages by pushing Two-Way decisions to the lowest possible level

3. Sense-Making & Adaptation Frameworks

These determine HOW to make a decision based on environmental stability.

Cynefin Framework

Core Function: Situational categorization

Mechanism: Sorts problems into five domains: Clear (Best Practices), Complicated (Experts), Complex (Probe-Sense-Respond), Chaotic (Act to stabilize), Disorder

Strategic Value: Prevents leaders from applying standardized solutions to complex problems—a primary cause of failure in modern business

OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act)

Core Function: Competitive tempo

Mechanism: Continuous cycle where "Orient" (filtering data through culture and experience) is critical to outpacing competitors

Best Use Case: High-growth ecommerce and defense sectors where decision speed determines survival

4. Algorithmic Frameworks

Decision Model and Notation (DMN)

Core Function: Decision automation in high-volume environments

Mechanism: Maps decision logic into formats readable by both humans and machines (AI)

Use Case: Credit risk, logistics, compliance—contexts requiring consistent, auditable decision-making at scale

Evidence: Framework Efficacy

The data on frameworks is mixed but instructive:

Faster Decision-Making 30% improvement

Improved Decision Accuracy 26% improvement

Teams Still Experience Decision Churn 77% of teams

$16,491 annual cost per manager of ineffective collaboration and decision-making

The frameworks work. But only when they're actually followed.

The Shallow Execution Problem

Most frameworks fail due to shallow execution. The framework is documented. Roles are assigned. Training happens. Then the organization returns to making decisions the way it always has.

This isn't a commitment problem. It's an instrumentation problem. Without a way to see whether DACI Driver actually drove, or whether RAPID Agree actually agreed (vs. staying silent), the framework becomes a reference document rather than an operating system.

The most telling symptom: fake agreement persists regardless of the framework used.

A team can follow DACI to the letter—Driver identified, Approver assigned, Contributors consulted—and still experience the same decision reopening three weeks later because someone who was silent in the room resurfaces an objection asynchronously.

The framework defined who should speak. It didn't reveal whether they actually did.

What Frameworks Can't See

Decision frameworks are designed to answer three questions:

1. Who owns this decision?
2. How should we make it?
3. What process should we follow?

They do not answer:

• Did closure actually happen?
• Were objections voiced or suppressed?
• Did the decision hold, or did it reopen?
• Was the framework actually followed, or documented but ignored?

The Invisible Gaps

DACI can't detect:

• Whether the Driver actually pushed the process forward or let it drift
• Whether Contributors truly contributed or just attended
• Whether the Approver's approval was genuine agreement or absence of disagreement

RAPID can't detect:

• Whether the "Agree" stakeholder actually agreed or simply didn't veto
• Whether Input providers felt their input was genuinely considered
• Whether the Decider's decision was understood the same way by all participants

SPADE can't detect:

• Whether the "Explain" phase was genuinely understood or just broadcast
• Whether rejected alternatives were actually considered or dismissed prematurely
• Whether the decision will hold when executed or resurface during implementation

The Missing Layer: Decision Reliability Infrastructure

This is where decision reliability infrastructure becomes necessary. Not as a replacement for frameworks, but as the instrumentation layer that makes frameworks work.

Growth Wise operates at this layer. It doesn't tell you who should own a decision (that's DACI). It doesn't tell you whether to use consensus or consultation (that's SPADE). It shows you whether the framework you chose was actually followed and whether the decision it produced achieved closure.

What Decision Reliability Infrastructure Instruments

Closure Audit: Did the DACI Driver secure explicit commitment from the Approver? Did the RAPID Agree role voice concerns or stay silent? Did SPADE's "Explain" phase produce shared understanding or just information distribution?

Fake Agreement Detection: Were objections voiced during the meeting, or suppressed and surfaced later? Did silence indicate agreement, or did it indicate disengagement? Were perspectives genuinely integrated, or just represented?

Drift Analysis: Did the meeting follow the intended framework, or drift into a different mode? Was this supposed to be a DACI decision forum that became a status update? Did a RAPID decision process skip the "Agree" phase under time pressure?

Framework Adherence: Was the framework actually followed, or documented but ignored? Did roles function as designed, or collapse under execution pressure? Are decisions reopening because the framework failed, or because it wasn't used?

How Frameworks and Instrumentation Work Together

The complete stack for decision reliability:

Layer 1: Framework Selection

Choose the right framework for the decision type (DACI for velocity, RAPID for complexity, SPADE for irreversibility). Define roles clearly. Train the team on the process.

Layer 2: Execution

Run the framework in the actual meeting. Document decisions and ownership. Distribute outcomes.

Layer 3: Instrumentation (The Missing Layer)

Audit whether closure occurred. Detect fake agreement or suppressed objections. Validate whether the framework was actually followed. Show whether decisions are holding or reopening.

Layer 4: Continuous Improvement

Identify which frameworks work for which decision types. Surface where execution breaks down. Adapt the coordination architecture based on what's actually working.

The Market Shift: From Frameworks to Enforcement

The $9.68 billion market is shifting from teaching frameworks to encoding them into software. Organizations don't just need to know what DACI is—they need systems that enforce DACI and show when it breaks.

This is why "Decision Intelligence Platforms" are emerging. Not to replace frameworks, but to instrument whether they're working. The same way DevOps tools don't replace software development processes—they make visible whether those processes are producing the intended outcomes.

Growth Wise is decision reliability infrastructure. It sits beneath DACI, RAPID, SPADE, Cynefin, and OODA. It doesn't tell you which framework to use. It shows you whether the framework you chose achieved the outcome it was designed for: a decision that holds.

When to Add the Instrumentation Layer

If your organization experiences any of these patterns, you have a shallow execution problem:

• Frameworks are documented but decisions still reopen
• Roles are assigned but ownership feels ambiguous
• Training happens but behavior doesn't change
• "Fake agreement" persists despite clear process
• The same decision gets re-litigated in different forums
• People can't explain why a decision was made, only what was decided

The frameworks are necessary. They define structure. But without instrumentation, you can't see whether the structure is actually being used—or whether decisions are still being made the way they always were, with a framework as decoration.

Summary

Decision frameworks like DACI, RAPID, and SPADE solve for role clarity and authority. They define who owns the decision and what process to follow. But they can't detect shallow execution, fake agreement, or whether closure actually occurred. The $9.68 billion decision framework market is shifting from teaching frameworks to instrumenting whether they work. Decision reliability infrastructure fills the gap—showing whether DACI Driver actually drove, whether RAPID Agree actually agreed, and whether decisions hold or reopen. Frameworks define the process. Instrumentation shows whether the process worked.