If RACI isn't your cup of coffee, try a MOCHA

It’s a go-to staple for Project Managers. The “let’s get clarity on who’s doing what” tool. Of course, that’s important for projects. But am I the only one that finds it confusing? For a start, is it RACI or RASCI (S = Supportive), or is it DACI (Driver, Approver, Contributor, Informed) or RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide)? I actually think they all miss the mark a little bit.

It’s not how we talk

None of the acronyms really put how we talk into the words. I never go into a meeting saying “for this decision I am a contributor”. I might say “can I help?” I never look at a work item not making progress and say “who is accountable for this”. But I might say “who’s supposed to be managing this piece of work”. Because none of the acronyms reflect how I speak (is it just me?), I find them hard to remember and hard to remember what they’re supposed to mean.

It’s like someone tried to be too clever to get an acronym that made sense, rather than thinking about the words we actually use.

Enter MOCHA

At the risk of adding a 5th acronym to the mix and making the situation even worse, I’d like to make the case for using MOCHA. Yes, I know, it’s another clever sounding acronym at risk of falling into the same trap. Except it doesn’t.

• Manager - the person who oversees the work

• Owner - the person who owns the work

• Consulted - provides advice & guidance

• Helper - helps out on the work

• Approver - signs off

  
  

Why is this better?

What could possibly be better than coffee and chocolate mixed together? And living in a city that is coffee obsessed, it’s obviously a cute acronym to use. But I think it’s better for some actual good reasons too.

I like the inclusion of “helper”. I don’t see this in any of the other models but most people involved in the work are actually helpers. Now, rather than ignoring most people, there’s a label for them. They feel included.

I like the separation of owner-manager-approver. Too many models are either silent on the approver, or have an implicit assumption that the accountable is the approver, even though there are loads of situations where that just doesn’t work. If you can only have one accountable and the decision-making role is split, you get 2 accountables. One of them isn’t “really” accountable and the situation is all messy.

But most of all, I like the fact that when I use this with teams, I don’t have to explain anything to them. The number of times I sit down with a project team and ask “who’s accountable and who’s responsible for this work”, to get back the really valid question “what does accountable mean again?”. I never get that with MOCHA. Who’s managing this work? Who’s helping? Who’s approving? It’s just easy.

The art of a great Project Manager is great communication. I think MOCHA helps me communicate better than the other frameworks. Now, who’s for a coffee?