Standard : Decision-making authority follows the work, not the hierarchy
Purpose and Strategic Importance
This standard ensures that decision-making authority is embedded within the teams closest to the work rather than concentrated at the top of the organisational hierarchy. It supports speed, clarity, and ownership—key drivers of a high-performing and motivated engineering culture.
Aligned to our "Decentralised Decision-Making" and "Developer Experience Matters" policies, this standard eliminates unnecessary escalation, reduces bottlenecks, and encourages accountability. Without it, decisions are delayed, quality suffers, and autonomy is undermined.
Strategic Impact
- Faster decision cycles and improved delivery velocity
- Clearer accountability and fewer dependencies on hierarchy
- Enhanced psychological safety, ownership, and team morale
- Reduced risk of rework and improved fit-for-purpose outcomes
Risks of Not Having This Standard
- Delayed decisions and reduced responsiveness to change
- Increased reliance on escalation and gatekeeping
- Disempowered teams with low morale and high attrition risk
- Inefficient workflows due to blurred roles and unclear mandates
CMMI Maturity Model
Level 1 – Initial
| Category |
Description |
| People & Culture |
Decision-making defaults to leadership, creating dependency and delay. |
| Process & Governance |
No clarity on who has authority for what; approvals are inconsistent. |
| Technology & Tools |
Decisions rely on manual coordination, with limited visibility or traceability. |
| Measurement & Metrics |
No tracking of decision delays or their impact on outcomes. |
Level 2 – Managed
| Category |
Description |
| People & Culture |
Teams are encouraged to decide locally, but authority varies by manager. |
| Process & Governance |
Some guidelines exist, but decision rights are inconsistently applied. |
| Technology & Tools |
Communication tools support collaboration, but authority is still ambiguous. |
| Measurement & Metrics |
Basic tracking of decision escalations or cycle time exists. |
Level 3 – Defined
| Category |
Description |
| People & Culture |
Teams understand their decision rights and use them confidently. |
| Process & Governance |
Authority is mapped to work domains and communicated across functions. |
| Technology & Tools |
Tools support clear documentation and traceability of decisions. |
| Measurement & Metrics |
Escalation frequency and decision cycle time are reviewed regularly. |
Level 4 – Quantitatively Managed
| Category |
Description |
| People & Culture |
Teams actively assess and improve their local authority effectiveness. |
| Process & Governance |
Data informs process improvements to reduce delays and duplicate decisions. |
| Technology & Tools |
Workflows route decisions automatically based on ownership and context. |
| Measurement & Metrics |
Metrics include decision impact, delay cost, and autonomy health. |
Level 5 – Optimising
| Category |
Description |
| People & Culture |
Teams shape and refine decision frameworks based on delivery feedback. |
| Process & Governance |
Governance structures evolve to align authority with value streams. |
| Technology & Tools |
Intelligent tooling suggests routing or delegation based on context. |
| Measurement & Metrics |
Decision efficiency, ownership clarity, and team empowerment are optimised. |
Key Measures
- Percentage of decisions made at team level versus escalated
- Average decision lead time and impact on delivery flow
- Reduction in rework due to delayed or misaligned decisions
- Survey data on perceived autonomy and empowerment
- Number of handoffs removed or streamlined through local authority