Editorial Governance and Strategy

Content Governance RACI

Assign who requests, drafts, reviews, approves, publishes, and maintains each content type so work moves without hidden ownership gaps or approval loops.

Free editable Markdown · Content operations teams, program managers, and editorial leaders · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Role definitions

Program or scope: [Channels, products, or teams covered]
Matrix owner: [Accountable maintenance role]
Responsible means: [Define what completing work includes]
Accountable means: [Define final decision and outcome ownership]
Consulted means: [Define required input and response window]
Informed means: [Define notification method and timing]
Emergency escalation: [Role and contact path]
Review date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

Content-type matrix

Content type: [Example: evergreen help article]
Request intake: [R / A / C / I roles]
Brief approval: [R / A / C / I roles]
Drafting: [R / A / C / I roles]
Source verification: [R / A / C / I roles]
Editorial approval: [R / A / C / I roles]
Specialist approval: [R / A / C / I roles or Not applicable]
Technical publishing: [R / A / C / I roles]
Post-publication monitoring: [R / A / C / I roles]
Correction or removal: [R / A / C / I roles]
Scheduled maintenance: [R / A / C / I roles]

Quality checks

Every material decision has exactly one Accountable role.
Work steps have at least one Responsible role.
Consulted roles know the input and deadline expected from them.
Informed roles receive a defined notification instead of an approval request.
Absence, conflict, and urgent escalation paths are documented.
Maintenance and retirement have owners, not only publication.

Adoption record

Roles consulted: [List role owners]
Unresolved conflicts: [Issue, temporary owner, and resolution date]
Approved by: [Names or roles]
Source-of-truth location: [URL or repository]
Change process: [Who may request and approve an update?]

How to use this template

Select recurring content types that have distinct workflows, risk levels, or owners.
List the life-cycle decisions that materially affect quality, authority, publication, correction, and maintenance.
Assign one Accountable role and at least one Responsible role where work is required, then add only necessary consultation.
Test the assignments with recent and urgent scenarios, resolving overlaps, gaps, and roles without capacity.
Obtain role-owner agreement, publish the matrix with connected procedures, and name a date and owner for review.

Model the full life cycle

A matrix limited to drafting and approval hides the work that most often fails: intake, evidence collection, accessibility checks, technical publishing, measurement, correction, and retirement. Choose representative content types with genuinely different risk or operating patterns. A product release note, evergreen guide, urgent service alert, and campaign landing page may need separate rows even when they share a channel. For each, map the meaningful decisions across its life cycle. Do not make the matrix so granular that every comma becomes a task. The purpose is to expose handoffs where authority or work is ambiguous.

Protect single accountability

Each decision should normally have one Accountable role. Several people may perform or review the work, but shared final accountability often becomes no accountability when a deadline arrives. If two leaders truly hold separate authority, split the row—for example, editorial approval and regulated-claim approval. Use Consulted sparingly and explain what input is required. Listing every stakeholder as Consulted creates serial meetings and gives reviewers an implied veto they may not legally or operationally possess. Informed is a communication obligation, not a request for retrospective approval.

Validate the matrix with scenarios

Run at least three recent pieces through the draft chart. Ask who opens the request, who can reject it, who verifies claims, who presses publish, who responds to an error, and who decides the page is obsolete. Identify places where the documented role differs from real practice. The difference may reveal a broken workflow, an outdated organization chart, or important informal expertise. Resolve it with the relevant managers rather than simply documenting the workaround. Include a backup or escalation path for absence and urgent content, then review the matrix after team or channel changes.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: Willow Library program guide

Willow Library Network is invented; the assignments below are illustrative only.

Content type: Public program guide.
Brief: Program coordinator is Responsible; managing editor is Accountable; accessibility lead is Consulted.
Publication: Web producer is Responsible; managing editor remains Accountable and the branch manager is Informed.
Correction: Web producer performs the change, while the managing editor decides whether a visible correction note is required.
Maintenance: Program coordinator checks dates monthly; the managing editor decides when to archive the guide.

Frequently asked questions

What if two departments must approve?

Split the decision when they approve different things. Editorial may be accountable for clarity and publication, while compliance is accountable for a regulated claim. If both approve the identical outcome, name the governing authority and escalation path instead of leaving a permanent tie.

Can a person hold several RACI roles?

Yes, especially on small teams. A writer may be Responsible and Accountable for low-risk work. The matrix should still distinguish the responsibilities so the team can see where independent review is absent and decide whether the risk is acceptable.

Should external agencies appear in the matrix?

Include a vendor role when it performs recurring work or supplies required input. Keep internal accountability with an authorized owner, and state contractual boundaries, access, response times, and what happens if the vendor is unavailable.

How often should a content RACI be reviewed?

Review it after reorganizations, new channels, repeated delays, ownership disputes, or material policy changes, plus a regular interval suitable for the team. A named owner should update both the chart and linked procedures together.