Responsibility assignment across the 55-person delivery team and the program's governance bodies — one consolidated matrix, the same convention the Agile, Federal, and Aerospace suites use for their own RACI pages. The last six rows cross-reference the Project Governance Model §3.1 decision-rights tiers (change requests, risk acceptance, exceptions) rather than covering deliverable sign-off alone — the same pattern the Agile suite's RACI uses to fold ceremony ownership and governance decisions into a single table.
The 46 hands-on and specialist roles added via RAIDD D-005 (the 2nd/3rd developers across all 6 integration tracks, the onshore QA automation and offshore manual-test bench, the Data Architect and Integration Architect, the Infrastructure/DevOps engineers and Security Engineer, the additional Business Analysts, the PMO Scheduler and Governance/Compliance analysts, and the 4 named UAT business SMEs) execute day-to-day build, test, data-conversion, and governance-support work but roll up under J. Albert (architecture & integration build), R. Whitfield (QA, testing, and security execution), M. Alvarez (platform & infrastructure), T. McCormick (data conversion/ETL), N. Sharma / G. Fenwick (compliance and audit analysis), and C. Tyrrell (Change Management, Training, and Customer Experience, which report directly to the Program Manager) for RACI purposes below — the same convention the Agile, Federal, and Aerospace suites use for their own delivery-team roll-ups.
| Activity / Decision | C. Tyrrell Program Mgr. |
F. Jones Lead BA |
J. Albert Solution Arch. |
M. Alvarez Sys. Upgrade Lead |
T. McCormick Data Conv. Lead |
R. Whitfield QA/Test Lead |
N. Sharma Compliance/CCO |
G. Fenwick SOX/Audit Lead |
W. Donnelly Vendor/Procurement |
Steering Committee | S. Ryan PMO Director |
G. Whitfield Exec. Sponsor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements sign-off | A | R | - | - | - | - | I | - | - | C | - | - |
| Vendor selection & SOW | A | - | I | - | - | - | I | - | R | C | - | - |
| System upgrade validation | A | - | C | R | - | I | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Data conversion sign-off | A | C | - | - | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Integration build (per track)¹ | C | - | A/R | - | - | I | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Security & pen test sign-off¹ | - | - | - | C | - | R | A | I | - | - | - | - |
| SOX compliance sign-off (initial) | C | - | - | - | - | - | A | R | - | I | - | - |
| UAT sign-off² | A | - | - | - | - | R | - | - | - | I | - | - |
| Data architecture sign-off¹ | C | - | A/R | - | C | I | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Integration architecture sign-off¹ | - | - | A/R | - | - | I | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Infrastructure & cloud readiness sign-off¹ | I | - | C | A/R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| OCM / training readiness sign-off¹ | A/R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | I | - | - |
| Go-live / cutover decision | R | I | C | C | C | C | I | I | I | A | - | - |
| Approve Tier 2 Change Request | C | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | A | R | I |
| Approve Tier 3 Change Request | I | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | C | R | A |
| Accept high-scored risk (RAIDD ≥7) | R | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | A | C | I |
| Authorize SOX compliance exception | I | - | - | - | - | - | R | - | - | C | - | A |
| Approve vendor SOW change³ | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | R | A | C | I |
| Quarterly governance framework review | C | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | A | R | I |
¹Rows marked A/R reflect roll-up: the named specialist(s) who actually perform the work (e.g., K. Larsson for Data Architecture, S. Okwuosa for Security, the 6 track development teams for Integration Build) report through the column lead shown, who carries both Responsible and Accountable for RACI purposes — see the roll-up note above. ²UAT sign-off is Consulted by the 4 named business SMEs (Underwriting, Claims, Billing, Commission) on the Org Chart; they sit outside the core 10-person leadership set shown as columns here. ³Accountable sits with the Steering Committee when the change carries cost impact, or with the Program Manager when it does not — shown here at Steering Committee since cost-impact changes are the more common case; see Governance §3.1 for the full conditional.
Source of record for the deliverable rows: PM Plan §9.2 (presented there as a name-under-role-header table rather than this grid). Full governance-body definitions: Project Governance Model §3.1.