RACI Matrix for Cross-Functional Responsibilities

Good to see you again. In the previous lesson, you selected an onboarding model based on the minimum viable touch needed for a customer to reach a credible value milestone. That decision only works when the teams involved know exactly where their authority begins and ends.

This lesson turns cross-functional collaboration into an operating model. You will use a RACI matrix to assign responsibilities across Sales, Solutions, Implementation, Product, Support, and Customer Success—without making Customer Success the default owner of every post-sale problem. By the end, you should be able to build, critique, and defend a practical onboarding RACI for a SaaS customer journey.

---

RACI: clarify the work before assigning the people

A RACI matrix is a compact way to answer four different questions for each specific task or deliverable:

Letter	Meaning	Practical onboarding question
R — Responsible	Performs or coordinates the work. There can be more than one.	Who actually does the work?
A — Accountable	Owns the outcome, decision, and final approval. There should be exactly one.	Who has the authority—and obligation—to ensure this is done?
C — Consulted	Gives input before a decision or deliverable is finalized. This is two-way communication.	Whose expertise is required before proceeding?
I — Informed	Receives a relevant update after a decision, milestone, or change. This is one-way communication.	Who needs visibility but not a decision role?

The distinction between Responsible and Accountable is the most important.

• An Implementation Lead might be Responsible for configuring the workspace and validating an integration.
• A Customer Success Manager might be Accountable for the overall onboarding plan and verification that the customer reached the agreed value milestone.
• A Product Manager might be Accountable for prioritizing a product defect, even though Support diagnosed it and Engineering will eventually fix it.

Accountability is not a seniority badge. It belongs with the role that has the decision rights and can resolve trade-offs for the task in question.

Two baseline rules prevent most RACI failures:

1. Every task has one—and only one—A.
2. Every task has at least one R.

A task without an A invites delay: several people assume someone else will decide. A task without an R is simply work that no one has committed to doing.

---

The SaaS onboarding roles: what each function is there to do

Before building a matrix, distinguish the functions. Titles vary across companies, but the underlying decision boundaries recur.

Here is a useful default interpretation of the six functions in this course.

Function	Primary onboarding contribution	It should usually not own
Sales / Account Executive	Captures the commercial context, confirms what was sold, documents commitments, introduces post-sale owners, and resolves commercial ambiguity.	Day-to-day project management after handoff; technical delivery that was not sold.
Solutions	Validates solution feasibility, translates customer needs into an architecture or workflow design, and clarifies technical scope. This may be Sales Engineering or a Solution Architect function.	Routine configuration or long-term customer adoption.
Implementation	Delivers the technical and operational setup: configuration, integrations, migration, testing, and launch readiness.	Commercial concessions, feature-roadmap promises, or proving ongoing business value alone.
Customer Success	Orchestrates customer alignment around desired outcomes, governance, adoption, stakeholder engagement, and the transition to ongoing success.	Quietly absorbing product defects, unsold technical work, or customer-owned decisions.
Support	Resolves break-fix issues and known technical questions through established support processes; identifies recurring friction.	Leading the implementation project or deciding product roadmap priorities.
Product	Owns product decisions: defect prioritization, roadmap trade-offs, product constraints, and sometimes reusable enablement or in-product guidance.	Delivering a customer-specific configuration or committing to custom work through a support ticket.

The distinction between Solutions and Implementation deserves particular attention:

• Solutions answers: What should the solution look like, and is it viable within the agreed scope?
• Implementation answers: How will we configure, connect, test, and launch that agreed solution?

At a small SaaS company, one person may perform both functions. The RACI should still distinguish the decisions: architecture and scope approval are not identical to delivery execution.

Similarly, Customer Success should be accountable for customer outcome coordination, not necessarily for every workstream that contributes to that outcome. A CSM can own the mutual action plan while an Implementation Lead owns technical readiness and a Product Manager owns a product-priority decision.

---

Read a RACI matrix horizontally and vertically

A RACI is useful only when it is tied to concrete work. Avoid rows such as “Manage onboarding” or “Ensure customer success.” Those phrases conceal dozens of decisions and create a predictable outcome: every team marks itself Responsible.

Instead, write rows as observable actions or deliverables:

• document sales commitments and constraints;
• approve the solution design;
• complete data migration validation;
• run the kickoff;
• triage a technical incident;
• verify that the customer reached first value.

The provided Sales–CS handoff matrix is a useful starting illustration. It maps several activities to an Account Executive, Customer Success Manager, and functional leaders.

Read it horizontally first: for each activity, can you identify one clear owner and the people who must contribute or receive an update? Then read it vertically: does one role appear accountable for an unsustainable number of tasks, or is a leader unnecessarily inserted into routine delivery?

The visual also reveals an important design caution. A matrix can be technically filled in but still be operationally vague:

• It focuses on the handoff and high-level governance, not the detailed technical work of implementation, support, and product.
• It uses a combined designation in one cell for a senior Customer Success leader. In a clean RACI, a person normally has one relationship to a given task. If someone needs to provide input and later receive updates, make them C and define the update cadence elsewhere; consultation already creates appropriate visibility.
• It does not specify the deliverable, deadline, or customer-side dependency for each row. RACI clarifies ownership; it does not replace a mutual action plan.

A good matrix therefore sits alongside the onboarding plan, CRM handoff record, project workspace, and escalation process.

---

Build the matrix in the right order

Do not begin by distributing letters across departments. Begin with the customer’s value path and the points at which a decision or handoff could fail.

Use this six-step sequence.

1. Set the process boundary

State what the matrix covers. For example:

Scope: From signed contract and Sales handoff through technical launch, first-value verification, and transition to ongoing Customer Success.

A scope statement prevents a team from trying to govern the entire customer lifecycle in one oversized document.

2. List atomic tasks and tangible outputs

Each row should produce something a person could review:

Too broad	Better RACI row
Manage the handoff	Record sales commitments, assumptions, risks, stakeholders, and success criteria in the handoff record.
Do implementation	Complete configured environment, data validation, and integration acceptance test.
Handle product issues	Decide priority and customer response for a confirmed product defect blocking launch.
Drive adoption	Verify that the agreed user group completed the first real workflow that demonstrates value.

If a row contains several independent verbs—such as “design, configure, train, and launch”—split it. Those activities usually have different accountable owners.

3. Assign the A before anything else

Ask:

Who can make the final decision, resolve a conflict, and accept the completed deliverable?

For instance:

• Sales is usually A for the accuracy and completeness of the commercial handoff.
• Implementation is usually A for technical setup completion within the agreed design.
• Product is usually A for prioritizing a product change or defect fix.
• Customer Success is usually A for the onboarding plan, stakeholder alignment, and verification of the customer’s outcome milestone.

The accountable owner may escalate a decision, but remains accountable for making sure it is resolved.

4. Add the R

Now ask who performs the work. Multiple Rs are acceptable when people contribute directly to one coherent deliverable. But too many Rs often means the row is too broad or that nobody is coordinating the work.

An A can also be an R. For a routine CSM-led kickoff, the CSM may be marked R/A: they prepare and run the meeting, own the decision record, and ensure the follow-up actions exist.

5. Make C and I deliberately scarce

Consulted roles create two-way communication, which is valuable but takes time. Include a role as C only when its input changes the decision or deliverable.

For example:

• Consult Solutions before finalizing an integration design.
• Consult Product when a documented platform constraint or product decision affects the customer’s plan.
• Inform Sales when onboarding scope, timing, or customer sentiment creates a commercial or relationship risk.

Do not put executives, Product, or Sales into every row simply because the account is important. That creates calendar-driven onboarding rather than value-driven onboarding.

6. Test the matrix against a real disruption

A matrix is credible when it survives a realistic scenario:

Two weeks before launch, the data import fails validation. The customer says the original Sales conversation implied a custom data transformation would be included. Who investigates? Who decides whether the request is in scope? Who explains the decision to the customer? Who receives the update?

If the team cannot answer within a minute, the RACI needs refinement.

---

Worked example: a hybrid B2B SaaS onboarding

Consider a workflow-management SaaS customer on a hybrid onboarding model. The customer has purchased a $\$75,000$ annual contract, requires SSO and one data integration, and has a stated success criterion:

Within 45 days, 40 operations users complete their first live request cycle in the platform, and the Operations Director can review the resulting status report.

The onboarding team should not assign “Customer Success” to own every row. A stronger RACI could look like this.

Key: Sales = Account Executive; Solutions = Solution Architect or Sales Engineer; Implementation = Implementation Lead; CS = Customer Success Manager.

Onboarding task / deliverable	Sales	Solutions	Implementation	Product	Support	CS
Document commercial commitments, promised capabilities, stakeholders, risks, and success criteria in the handoff record	R/A	C	I	I	I	I
Accept handoff; create the onboarding plan, governance cadence, and customer action list	C	C	C	I	I	R/A
Approve the solution design and integration approach within contracted scope	I	R/A	R	C	C	C
Configure the environment, connect data, and validate technical readiness	I	C	R/A	I	C	C
Run customer kickoff; confirm scope, roles, dates, customer responsibilities, and escalation route	C	C	C	I	I	R/A
Deliver role-based enablement and prepare users for the first live workflow	I	C	R	C	C	R/A
Triage and communicate a technical support case blocking onboarding	I	C	C	C	R/A	I
Decide priority and customer response for a confirmed product defect blocking launch	I	I	C	R/A	C	C
Verify first-value evidence; transition the account to ongoing success management	I	C	C	I	I	R/A

Several features of this matrix are worth examining.

Sales is accountable for commercial truth, not post-sale delivery

Sales owns the quality of the handoff, including whether commitments, assumptions, and commercial constraints are accurately transferred. Sales is Consulted during kickoff because a commercial relationship can matter—but Sales does not become accountable for the onboarding plan simply because the deal is new.

If Sales promised something that was not technically feasible or was not in the order form, the issue should not disappear into Customer Success. The matrix makes the gap visible early enough to resolve it.

Solutions owns the design decision; Implementation owns execution

The Solution Architect is accountable for the design and integration approach. The Implementation Lead is responsible for contributing delivery reality: how the design can actually be configured, tested, and launched.

Once the design is approved, Implementation becomes accountable for technical readiness. This protects against a common anti-pattern: a salesperson or solution architect remains informally responsible for post-sale configuration because the delivery boundary was never made explicit.

Product is accountable only for decisions Product can control

A Product Manager cannot be accountable for the customer’s entire onboarding outcome. They can be accountable for the priorities and trade-offs inside the product domain—for example, whether a confirmed defect receives an urgent fix, workaround, or deferred treatment.

The customer-facing response still needs coordination. Support contributes the evidence; Implementation explains delivery implications; CS evaluates outcome risk and communicates with the customer. Product owns the product decision.

Support owns support cases, not the project

Support is accountable for triaging and communicating a support case through the defined support process. This does not mean Support owns an implementation delay, a weak onboarding plan, or a missing customer decision.

The distinction matters because it prevents ticket queues from becoming a shadow onboarding project-management system.

Customer Success owns the outcome system

The CSM is accountable for the onboarding plan, stakeholder alignment, role-based enablement coordination, and verification that the customer achieved the agreed outcome milestone. This is outcome orchestration—not technical ownership of every task.

In the example, the completion evidence is not “SSO enabled” or “training delivered.” It is that the intended users completed a live workflow and the Operations Director used its output. That follows the value-based completion principle from the earlier lesson.

---

Customer responsibilities belong in the operating model too

A vendor-only RACI can accidentally imply that the SaaS company controls every dependency. It does not.

The customer may need to:

• name an executive sponsor, administrator, and technical owner;
• provide clean source data;
• approve the solution design;
• complete a security review;
• attend working sessions;
• make internal process or policy decisions;
• ensure intended users actually participate in the new workflow.

For a high-touch or hybrid onboarding, extend the matrix with customer-side roles such as Customer Executive Sponsor, Customer Administrator, and Customer Technical Owner. For lower-touch onboarding, capture the same commitments in a mutual action plan or structured onboarding checklist.

The key governance principle is:

The SaaS company can be accountable for making customer dependencies visible, planned, and escalated. It cannot be accountable for performing decisions or actions that only the customer can take.

If the customer has not named an administrator, that is a risk and an action for CS to manage—not an implementation task that can be completed internally.

---

Audit the matrix before treating it as policy

RACI matrices commonly fail in ways that sound sensible at first.

“Everyone is accountable”

This is usually an attempt to signal partnership. In practice, it produces slow decisions and unowned escalations. Assign one A, then define the other contributors precisely.

“The CSM is accountable for every row”

This may feel customer-centric, but it obscures functional decision rights. A CSM cannot approve technical architecture, set product roadmap priority, or resolve a support incident alone. They should own customer coordination and escalation, not absorb accountability that belongs elsewhere.

“We will consult everyone to avoid surprises”

Too many Cs turn ordinary decisions into meetings. Ask whether a role must provide input before the work proceeds. If not, use I and specify the update trigger.

“The matrix says what happens”

It does not. RACI is not a project plan, service-level agreement, escalation policy, or communication cadence. Pair it with:

• a mutual action plan with dates and customer owners;
• entry and exit criteria for each onboarding phase;
• a handoff template;
• escalation paths and response expectations;
• a system of record, such as a CRM or onboarding workspace.

“We created it once, so it is finished”

A RACI needs testing and revision when products, packages, roles, or customer segments change. A startup may initially have one Solutions/Implementation generalist; later, that role may split into a formal Solutions Architect and an Implementation Manager. The process should be re-mapped at that point, not left to informal assumptions.

A practical review uses two scans:

Scan	Question	Warning sign
Horizontal: one row at a time	Does each task have one A and at least one R? Are C and I justified?	Multiple As, no R, or an entire leadership team marked C.
Vertical: one role at a time	Is one function overloaded or unexpectedly absent?	CS is A for everything; Product is C for every routine task; no role owns handoff quality.
Scenario test	Can the team act when scope, technical, or stakeholder problems occur?	The answer is “we would figure it out in a meeting.”

---

Key takeaways

RACI is a decision-rights and coordination tool for the moments where SaaS onboarding crosses functional boundaries.

• Responsible does the work; Accountable owns the decision and outcome; Consulted gives pre-decision input; Informed receives relevant updates.
• Build rows around specific deliverables, not broad aspirations such as “manage onboarding.”
• Assign the single A first, based on real authority—not seniority, customer visibility, or convenience.
• Sales owns commercial accuracy and a clean handoff; Solutions owns solution-design decisions; Implementation owns technical delivery; Support owns support-case handling; Product owns product decisions; Customer Success owns the customer’s onboarding plan, alignment, and value verification.
• Customer-side actions must be explicit. The vendor can manage and escalate dependencies, but cannot perform the customer’s internal decisions.
• Test the matrix with real failure scenarios, then keep it connected to the mutual action plan and day-to-day systems.

Next, you will make the RACI operational by documenting a post-sale handoff that preserves customer context, commitments, risks, stakeholders, and success criteria.