Fifteen program deliverables against eight functions. ⚠ Exactly one Accountable per row — the generator refuses to write this page otherwise, because two Accountables means nobody is. Prose for every function, and what each explicitly does not own, is in Artifact 32; the two are generated from one source so they cannot disagree.
R Responsible — does the work A Accountable — answers for the outcome, exactly one per row C Consulted — asked before the decision I Informed — told after it
| Ref | Deliverable | Integration Management Office | Claims & Core Administration | Data & EMPI | Application Integration | Cloud & Infrastructure | Business Operations | Corporate & Control | Vendor & Contract Management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-01 | Integration Charter and program plan | A | I | I | · | · | · | C | · |
| D-02 | Application disposition decisions | C | A | R | R | C | · | · | · |
| D-03 | Vendor and contract disposition | I | · | · | · | C | · | C | A |
| D-04 | Vendor SOWs and BAAs | C | · | · | · | · | · | A | R |
| D-05 | Member identity resolution | I | R | A | C | · | · | · | · |
| D-06 | Clerical review queue worked to closure | I | · | A | · | · | C | · | · |
| D-07 | Integration layer and interfaces | · | R | R | A | C | · | · | · |
| D-08 | Cloud landing zone and migration waves | I | · | · | R | A | · | · | · |
| D-09 | TSA exit, service by service | A | R | · | · | R | · | C | C |
| D-10 | Legal entity consolidation | I | C | · | · | · | · | A | · |
| D-11 | Member communications and ID cards | · | C | C | · | · | A | · | · |
| D-12 | Synergy realization and reporting | C | · | · | · | · | R | A | R |
| D-13 | Program budget and change control | R | I | · | · | I | · | A | · |
| D-14 | Day 1 readiness and go/no-go | A | R | R | · | R | · | C | · |
| D-15 | Closeout and benefits handover | A | · | · | · | · | C | R | · |
The row that does not behave like a normal RACI
⚠⚠ The Program Manager is Accountable for six deliverables and employs nobody who delivers any of them. He is a consultant; the workstream leads are accountable to the program and employed by ACME or by the target. On an ordinary program A and R sit in the same reporting line, so the distinction is administrative. Here it is the whole governance model: accountability runs to the IMO, and the authority to task anyone runs to an employer the IMO does not control.
What makes that workable is not authority but agreed cadence and a single reported status — an escalation path to someone who can direct, rather than a pretence that the IMO can.
Paired counterparts — one deliverable, two employers
Four workstreams pair an ACME lead with a Cumberland Valley counterpart, jointly accountable for the same deliverable across two employers. This is the distinctly M&A row and it has no equivalent in the other suites.
| Workstream | ACME lead | Cumberland Valley counterpart |
|---|---|---|
| Claims & Core Administration | W. Ferriday | R. Lattimore |
| Data & EMPI | Dr. A. Ravindran | C. Bhattacharya |
| Application Integration | K. Stallworth | — |
| Cloud & Infrastructure | B. Trammell | — |
⚠ The pairing exists because only one of the two knows how the target actually works, and only one of them will certainly still be employed at the end. Recording it as joint accountability is honest about that; recording a single owner would be tidier and false.
Bodies outside the matrix
These appear in no cell above because the program cannot assign them work. They are described in Artifact 32 §5.
| Body | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Clean Team | Harpeth Clean Team Services, engaged by ACME Legal |
| Integration Steering Committee | D. Ashmore (CFO, Sponsor) and five executives |
| Cheatham Mutual Holdings | the divesting parent, under the TSA |
| Human Resources | ACME HR, outside the program budget |
| Regulators | state insurance department and the FTC/DOJ |
Related: 53 — Roles & Responsibilities · 4 — IMO Governance · 15 — Organization Chart