Picture an internal IT technician passing a backup fault to your MSP, with both teams expecting the other to update the user. Before a usable RACI matrix, IT responsibilities can still end at the word shared. After the agreement is explicit, the receiving technician knows what to accept and the user has a named update owner.
I'd cut shared responsibility from a co-managed proposal wherever it leaves the next action unresolved. Your marketing can describe a partnership; the scope has to describe the work. Build the matrix with both delivery leads before promising that the combined service is ready.
Use the Letters as Instructions for This Worksheet
Make the proposed assignments readable to the people who will use them. For this worksheet, apply the RACI labels as follows:
- Responsible identifies the person or team performing the stated activity.
- Accountable identifies the named role answerable for that activity being completed.
- Consulted identifies who provides input needed for the activity.
- Informed identifies who receives the agreed update.
Have both teams agree what each assigned role means in practice. A title must resolve to someone available under the service arrangement, with a named cover route. An accountable role doesn't become a permanently available person just because it fits in a cell.
Keep authority beside the assignments. A person responsible for preparing a restore may still require authorization before starting it. Name who may give that authorization rather than treating a table entry as unrestricted permission to act.
Start With the Work Each Side Can Accept
Use the services the client is actually buying as the boundary for the worksheet. The model calls for a flat monthly fee with clear inclusions and exclusions. A responsibility matrix should explain that purchased scope, with any additional work following its agreed commercial route.
Break a broad service into actions where ownership changes. In the hypothetical backup fault, preparing an investigation and authorizing a restore are separate decisions. Keep the immediate client update distinct too, so the user doesn't have to discover which team currently holds the ticket.
Eric Anthony recommends setting co-managed ground rules and linking permissions to the work each team performs. Justin Esgar recommends documenting the arrangement and obtaining sign-off, with a copy retained on both sides. That is their practitioner advice; involve the people who must perform the handoff before issuing access.
The model also separates technical alignment from the business-planning role. Standards work belongs to the technical alignment responsibility, while the business conversation and budget belong to the vCIO responsibility. Don't collapse those into a strategy row that leaves a spending decision with whoever last inspected the environment.
Draft the Matrix With the Delivery Leads
The assignments below are a hypothetical starting arrangement for discussion, not a standard co-managed contract. Replace the role names with the client's actual authorized roles and your MSP's staffed roles. Keep each activity narrow enough that its completion can be checked.
| Activity | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted | Informed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Receive ordinary internal requests | Client help desk | Client IT lead | MSP when agreed escalation conditions apply | Requesting user through the normal client route |
| Investigate a fault accepted by the MSP | Assigned MSP technician | MSP delivery lead for that scope | Client technician providing the handoff | Named update owner |
| Review the agreed backup service | MSP backup operator | MSP delivery lead | Client IT on relevant dependencies | Agreed client contact for issues |
| Prepare a restore plan | Assigned technical operator | Named restore coordinator | Client IT and required business owner | Agreed incident or request contact |
| Authorize the proposed restore | Person named in the client approval process | Authorized client decision owner | Technical operator on effect and recovery | Implementer and update owner |
| Assess standards against the environment | Agreed technical alignment role | Named owner of that assessment | Client IT and relevant specialists | Business-planning role for decisions it must take |
Record the restore authorization conditions with that row. Identify what information the decision-maker needs before approving the action, including the affected work. Keep an emergency route under the existing response arrangement rather than letting the routine table obstruct an urgent authorized decision.
Don't assign an MSP specialist to work your team cannot staff. Have delivery confirm the skill and coverage behind the proposed role, and ask the client to confirm its side. Resolve an uncovered responsibility before presenting the matrix as agreed.
Walk the Backup Fault Across the Boundary
Use the hypothetical fault to test the proposed handoff. The client technician records the known problem and the relevant investigation, then sends it through the agreed escalation route. The receiving MSP role confirms acceptance and identifies the next technical action.
Decide explicitly who sends the client update while the investigation continues. If the client keeps that responsibility, the MSP must provide the information the named contact needs. If it transfers, record when the receiving person takes it so both teams can find the commitment.
Carry the example through a possible restore decision. The technical operator prepares the work, and the authorized client role decides whether it may proceed. The record should show what happened if permission was withheld or the proposed work changed.
Before the walkthrough, each side has an assignment on paper. After it, both sides should be able to explain the acceptance point and the required authority. If either remains unclear, revise the relevant row before anyone relies on it.
Write the Absence and Scope Exceptions
Agree how the arrangement works when a named client employee is unavailable. Identify who can authorize temporary cover and how the additional responsibility is scoped and priced. An absence shouldn't silently become a full managed-service commitment your MSP never costed.
Have the receiving team record a request outside the agreed boundary and direct it to the person authorized to assess it. Keep a next action visible while the commercial decision is pending. Rejecting a scope assumption doesn't require losing the record of the client's need.
Use the same process when the environment changes. A new service or permission requirement needs an agreed owner before the existing worksheet is treated as covering it. Preserve the previous version with the decision behind the update.
Match the Permissions to the Agreed Tasks
Have the technical leads compare the access each role needs with the responsibility it will carry. Use the client's authorized access process and check the implemented result. A signed scope sheet doesn't establish that an administrator was given the correct permissions.
Document any tool limitation that prevents the intended separation. Bring it back to the person who can decide the service design rather than sharing broader credentials to make the table appear workable. Keep the actual access plan linked to the current agreement.
A stronger sales page can't create approval authority or specialist capacity. If the work depends on either, resolve it before promising a working co-managed service. The client needs to know which remaining condition blocks readiness.
Measure the Handoffs the Matrix Was Meant to Fix
Count accepted handoffs and record those returned for missing information in the ticket system. Keep waiting for acceptance visible beside any later rework. Review the same type of work across comparable periods so a changed ticket mix doesn't masquerade as a better handoff.
If more tickets move between teams while unresolved or returned work also increases, I'd withdraw a claim that the split improved delivery until those cases are explained. A higher transfer count is not a completed-work measure. Review the failed cases with both delivery leads and change the required handoff information where needed.
Take a current request through the draft with the people who will receive it. Confirm who can accept it and what authority the next action requires. Get the same current worksheet into both teams' working records before signature.
mspoutpost.com/articles/a-raci-matrix-it-teams-can-use-for-co-managed-scope
Written by Owen Gallagher
MSP Outpost publishes information, not legal, financial, insurance, tax or compliance advice, and reading it creates no professional relationship. For decisions about your business, talk to a qualified professional.