Program Boundary Definition RACI: Operating Model Guardrails that Prevent Scope Creep

At a Glance

A program boundary RACI template defines roles and responsibilities for scope, deliverables, decisions, dependencies, and controls, clarifying accountability, preventing overlaps, and supporting disciplined, transparent transformation execution.

Why boundary definition needs a RACI, not just a scope document

Transformation programs drift when boundaries are treated as a one-time artifact rather than an operating model decision. Banks often invest heavily in charters and scope statements, but still experience scope creep because decision rights are unclear: who can approve new scope, who must validate risk and control impacts, and who is merely informed after decisions are made.

A Program Boundary Definition RACI turns “scope discipline” into an enforceable governance boundary. It clarifies the roles that define and maintain limits across scope, budget, dependencies, and strategic alignment—so delivery teams can move quickly inside the guardrails while executives retain control over what constitutes transformation scope.

RACI definitions that matter in transformation governance

Responsible: the role that produces the boundary artifacts

Responsible roles do the work—drafting the initial scope statement, producing in-scope and out-of-scope lists, capturing dependencies, and maintaining boundary documentation as the program evolves. The risk in many programs is assigning “R” too broadly, which creates competing versions of scope and inconsistent intake decisions.

Accountable: the single role that owns the boundary decision

Accountable is the control point. One role must sign off on final boundaries and on boundary changes, and be answerable for adherence to the mandate, regulatory expectations, and delivery feasibility. Multiple “A” roles in boundary decisions typically result in delayed decisions and informal bypasses.

Consulted: the expertise required to prevent blind spots

Consulted roles provide domain input before boundaries are finalized—risk, compliance, architecture, finance, and key functional leaders. Consultation is essential, but it must be time-bounded and structured; otherwise it becomes a mechanism for re-litigating scope rather than improving decision quality.

Informed: the stakeholders who need clarity, not influence

Informed roles need visibility once scope and boundaries are set. Over-using “C” when “I” is sufficient often leads to governance overload and slow delivery. The operating model boundary is explicit: some stakeholders are consumers of the decision, not co-owners of it.

A boundary definition RACI template for banking transformation programs

The following template is designed for programs where transformation scope must remain stable enough to baseline and track over time, but adaptable enough to incorporate validated learning and regulatory change. Role labels can be adjusted to match local structures, but the governance intent should remain consistent: a single accountable owner, clear consulted inputs, and disciplined informed communications.

Program activity / deliverable	Program Manager	Executive Sponsor	Steering Committee	Functional Leads	Project Teams
Initial scope statement	R	A	C	C	I
In-scope vs out-of-scope list	R	A	I	C	I
Program budget allocation	C	A	R	C	I
Defining project interdependencies	R	I	C	C	C
Stakeholder boundary approval	C	A	R	I	I
Boundary change control process	R	A	C	C	I

For high-impact programs, banks often add additional consulted roles (risk, compliance, CISO, data governance) for specific boundary decisions, such as new data domains, new third parties, or automation that changes decision rights. The key is to keep the RACI stable and predictable: escalation rules should be clear before decisions are needed.

Key boundary elements the RACI must govern

Scope management plan: the rules of the game

The scope management plan defines how scope is proposed, evaluated, approved, and tracked. It should establish the minimum information required for scope change requests (benefit rationale, risk impacts, dependencies, resource needs), the approval path by change type, and the evidence needed to demonstrate value delivery. This is where transformation scope is protected from becoming a collection of loosely related work items.

Strategic alignment: keeping boundaries anchored to outcomes

Boundary definitions must stay tied to business outcomes rather than shifting stakeholder preferences. A simple test helps: if an item does not measurably improve a strategic objective (growth, efficiency, control strength, resilience), it should not be treated as transformation scope. This alignment discipline also reduces portfolio overlap, because initiatives are less likely to proliferate when the target outcomes are explicit and shared.

Governance tiers: separating authorization from execution

Transformation operating models often collapse because execution roles are implicitly asked to authorize changes under delivery pressure. Governance tiers make the boundary explicit: accountable roles authorize boundary change; responsible roles execute within approved boundaries; consulted roles provide subject matter input; informed roles receive clear communication. This tiering reduces rework and prevents inconsistent scope expansion across program streams.

Making the RACI operational: intervention points that prevent drift

A RACI only improves scope discipline when it is embedded into the program cadence. Practical intervention points include: mandatory scope validation at demand intake, wave or release gating reviews where scope and dependencies are re-confirmed, and a regular boundary change control forum where exceptions are approved or rejected. The objective is to make boundary enforcement routine, so teams do not need bespoke escalation each time delivery pressure increases.

Evidence matters. Boundary decisions should be supported by traceable artifacts: what changed, why it changed, who approved it, what risks were assessed, and what outcome is expected. This traceability is essential for executive oversight and for demonstrating that the program is governed as a controlled transformation rather than an accumulation of ad hoc change.

Baselining governance boundaries to define transformation scope with confidence

Boundary clarity is itself a maturity signal. Banks that can baseline decision rights, enforce consistent intervention points, and maintain an auditable record of scope change are materially better positioned to track progress over time and to prevent overlap across programs. When these controls are weak, transformation scope becomes unstable: work is repeatedly re-prioritized, initiatives duplicate each other, and delivery metrics lose credibility.

Approached as a baseline capability, DUNNIXER supports scope definition decisions through the DUNNIXER Digital Maturity Assessment. The assessment dimensions reinforce boundary governance by evaluating decision-right clarity (who is accountable for what), governance cadence and evidence (how scope is controlled and tracked), cross-domain coordination (how consulted inputs prevent blind spots without stalling delivery), and execution discipline (whether approved boundaries hold under pressure). Executives use these signals to tighten operating model boundaries where drift risk is high, to standardize RACI patterns across portfolios, and to improve confidence that the program’s scope baseline is stable enough to measure and manage.

References

• https://miro.com/templates/scope-management-plan-by-rizwan-khawaja/
• https://slack.com/blog/productivity/raci-model-explained-definition-benefits-and-how-to-use-it
• https://www.projectmanagertemplate.com/post/how-to-define-boundaries-in-a-project
• https://www.aihr.com/blog/raci-template/
• https://www.projectmanager.com/training/write-scope-work
• https://www.larksuite.com/en_us/blog/raci-chart-project-management
• https://www.larksuite.com/blog/raci-matrix
• https://www.hibob.com/hr-tools/raci-template/
• https://www.avaza.com/responsibility-assignment-matrix-raci/
• https://www.kickidler.com/info/raci-made-simple-clarifying-roles-in-any-project
• https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2010/01/how-to-use-a-raci-matrix-raci-model/
• https://artifactly.ai/resources/guides/raci-matrix-guide
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/project-management-principles-ceyhun-jay-tugcu-kazcc
• https://www.examera.org/blog/blog042
• https://www.contec-x.de/en/software-clarity-ppm/