THE LEDGER
MKM-R-2026-014New edition: The State of Mid-Market Transformation 2026
01 / 04
MARKHAMConsultation
Frameworks
Framework · Governance

Decision Rights Ledger

Who decides, who is consulted, who is informed. Written down, then tested against the last ten decisions.

ReferenceMKM-F-008
Versionv1.1 · Current
First publishedSep 2024
Last revisedJan 2026
Review cycleEvery 10th application
StewardMarkham Institute
01 — The problem

Everyone is consulted; no one decides.

In the latency data, 71% of measured decision delay comes from missing authority rather than missing information. A decision with no single owner routes through everyone. Most organisations have a RACI somewhere, and almost none has one that survives contact with its own last ten decisions.

The ledger is a governance document with a test built in, so every recurring decision class gets one accountable owner, a consulted list kept deliberately short, and a named forum where the decision actually happens. Then the ledger is audited against the last ten significant decisions the organisation actually made, and wherever reality diverged from the page, either the page or the behaviour is corrected in writing before anyone signs it.

02 — The method
Draft

Decision classes are inventoried from minutes and approval trails. We list the decisions the organisation actually makes, not the ones the org chart implies.

Week 1
Test

The draft ledger is tested against the last ten significant decisions: who really decided, who was really consulted, how long it really took. Divergences are logged.

Week 2
Adopt

The reconciled ledger is signed and wired into the operating cadence: each decision class assigned to its forum, each with a named owner. Re-audited quarterly.

Week 3–4

The ten-decision test is the point of the instrument. A ledger that has not been tested against actual decisions is an aspiration rather than a governance document. The quarterly re-audit was optional in the first edition and is standard now, because ledgers in the earlier applications decayed once the installation team left. The test also needs a paper trail: where decisions are made verbally and never minuted, there is nothing to audit and the instrument cannot be run as written.

03 — Application

Where the model earns its keep

01

Organisations where decision latency is measured and material, since the ledger closes the authority gaps the measurement exposes.

02

Post-acquisition seams, where two authority structures must become one before integration decisions queue.

03

Hospital networks, professional firms and other consensus cultures, where consultation has quietly replaced decision.

04 — Evidence

The ledger has been drawn in more than twenty engagements since 2024, most sharply where consensus cultures had priced consultation into every decision, and the first figure below is one hospital network rather than an average of anything:

−54%Decision latency in the hospital-network engagement MKM-E-2025-131 after ledger adoption, verified at month 11.
The authority-versus-information ratio in measured latency (MKM-R-2026-011). That ratio is the gap this instrument closes.
05 — Governance & revisions

The Institute stewards the ledger format. Revisions follow every tenth application review. Superseded editions remain citable, and the format has changed once since first publication.

v1.1 · Jan 2026Quarterly re-audit made standard after adoption-decay findings in the 2025 applications.
v1.0 · Sep 2024First publication.

Cite as: Markham Institute, “Decision Rights Ledger”, MKM-F-008, v1.1 (2026).