You may have experienced the concept of diffusion of responsibility – when members of a group feel less personal obligation to perform an activity or task, assuming “someone else will handle it,” leading to inaction, delays, or reduced accountability. This can occur when the quality management system either poorly defines responsibility or defines responsibility to a group. This effect, also referred to as the “bystander effect,” was described by psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané in the 1960s. In group settings (e.g., teams or committees), responsibility dilutes as group size increases—each person feels less urgency because the burden is perceived as shared. The results:

• Tasks falling through cracks
• Delayed decisions
• Social loafing (reduced effort)
• Investigations or audits hearing “I thought someone else was doing that”

So how do we avoid diffusion of responsibility?

We should ensure that policies, procedures, and work instructions emphasize clear, singular ownership of responsibility. For example, management, project management, engineering, operations, and manufacturing procedures should assign a single accountable owner (or “single point of responsibility”) for critical processes or tasks. While a team may perform and complete the process or task, the single accountable owner would be responsible to ensure the process steps were completed and all the documentation and records were produced.

Some key frameworks may help. For example, one framework is the RACI Matrix. The acronym RACI is defined as:

• Responsible
• Accountable
• Consulted
• Informed

RACI is a standard tool in project management and QMS (e.g., aligned with ISO 9001/13485).

Accountable (A): Strictly one person—the ultimate owner who ensures completion, makes final decisions, and is answerable for outcomes (the “buck stops here”).

Responsible (R): Can be one or more people (the “doers”).

Rule: Only one “A” per task to prevent diffusion—multiple accountable parties recreate the group problem.

We would expect to see the single point of accountability person named in the governing plans for the project. One typical approach is to use “lead” on the front of team names. While the team may be “responsible” for the process or task, the “lead person” is “accountable” for ensuring all activities and tasks were performed according to the process and that all documentation and records were properly produced. From a management control perspective, there should be management action applied to the lead person if processes and/or tasks are not performed according to process.

Let us ensure all of our processes identify single points of accountability to counter this human tendency toward diffusion. Of course this is not intended to prevent teamwork and excellent group dynamics which is a related but separate topic.

Did you know that SoftwareCPR provides ISO 13495, QMSR, and MDSAP audits? Our certified auditors are not only expert with efficient and effective QMS but have that additional expertise with SaMD and HealthIT companies. Contact us for more information.