Decision Rights Map

What could this idea change?

The work is designed to produce a dated findings summary that separates facts, experience, assumptions and unanswered questions; the central local boundary is that governance changes must follow the club's constitution, bylaws, delegations, conflict rules and applicable law.

A simple way to start

1. Write the decision brief for Decision Rights Map: define which decision, role, handover or board process will be clarified through authorised change, the starting evidence, people affected, local authority, resource limit, success signals and stop conditions. Who could lead it: Club board sponsor and renewal lead
2. Invite members with varied experiences and affected community partners where appropriate, show what is open or fixed, make access practical and record trade-offs and minority views. Apply this specifically to Decision Rights Map and record which relevant experiences or users are still missing. Who could lead it: Club board sponsor and renewal lead with the access and privacy contacts
3. Build and test a bounded evidence review with defined inputs, participation gaps and interpretation limits for Decision Rights Map; complete the Decision Rights Map Diagnostic Evidence Matrix, rehearse the boundary wording and confirm who may decide, refer, pause, recover or close the work. Who could lead it: Facilitator and workstream owner
4. Use a time-bounded change with named authority, capacity and stop conditions; compare evidence with the starting point and make unfinished work, unintended effects and resource pressure visible. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether Decision Rights Map advances renewed leadership and governance. Who could lead it: Facilitator and workstream owner
5. Compare the evidence with the starting point, validate meaning with affected participants or users, record gaps and unintended effects and prepare a dated findings summary that separates facts, experience, assumptions and unanswered questions without overstating what the trial proves. Who could lead it: Facilitator and workstream owner with an independent reviewer

What should we look for?

• Review Decision Rights Map after 90 days. Look for whether authority, ownership and succession are clearer and decisions are made and followed through more reliably, and write down one decision the evidence supports.
• Decision Rights Map produces a dated findings summary that separates facts, experience, assumptions and unanswered questions by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations, participation gaps and unintended effects stated.
• People affected can explain the purpose, their choices, the boundary and how to raise an access, privacy, safety or governance concern.
• The trial shows whether renewed leadership and governance improved from the recorded starting point without shifting hidden workload, risk or exclusion elsewhere.
• Every accepted action has an owner, due date and completion evidence, and the club records a reasoned continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision.

Before we say yes

• Does it fit a real local need?
• Can people take part safely and fairly?
• Are the facts, permissions and Rotary branding right?
• Who will lead it, and when will we review it?