In GM543's Unit 5 decision rights map, six furniture-maker decisions receive their recommend, agree, perform, input and decide roles twice, once on paper and once in practice. Searches like "gm 543 unit 5 assignment example", "gm543 unit 5 sample" and "gm543 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished GM543 Unit 5 decision rights map looks like
Two matrices on facing pages carry the paper, each with six decisions as rows and the RAPID letters in the cells. The decisions were chosen because they recur weekly: discounts beyond list, acceptance of customer's own material, a promised ship date, an engineering deviation from standard, an installation date, and accepting an order below the plant's minimum run. The first matrix follows the approval policy and job descriptions. The second is built from [twenty] recent orders, recording who actually recommended, who could stop the decision and whose word ended it. Shaded cells mark every difference between the two. Commentary of about three pages follows, taking the differences in order of what they cost, and a short closing section proposes revised assignments along with the objections each is likely to meet.
How a GM543 Unit 5 example is structured
The map is built as a comparison because a single matrix of decision rights tends to reproduce the policy manual. Orders supply the evidence for the second matrix: for each of twenty, the writer traced email and approvals to see where each decision was really made. Rogers and Blenko's roles suit the job better than RACI, and the paper says why in a paragraph: RACI assigns tasks, and the difficulty here is not who does the work but who can say no. The commentary finds three patterns. Ship dates have two deciders, sales promising and the scheduler overriding. Finance holds an unwritten agree through credit holds on discounted orders. Nobody holds the D on customer's own material, so every such order waits for someone senior. Each pattern ends with a proposed assignment and the conflict it would create.
Six decisions that recur weekly
Discounts beyond list, customer's own material, promised ship date, engineering deviation, installation date and orders below minimum run. Each is defined tightly enough that two people would agree whether it had occurred.
The matrix the policy describes
Built from the approval policy and job descriptions. On paper every decision has one D, finance advises rather than vetoes, and the plant scheduler performs whatever date sales commits.
The matrix twenty orders describe
Traced through email and approvals, it shows two Ds on ship dates, an unwritten finance veto exercised through credit holds, and an empty D cell on customer's own material, where orders wait [eleven] days on average for someone senior to notice.
Why RACI was set aside
Responsible and accountable describe who works and who answers for the result. The disputes here concern who may stop a decision, which RAPID's agree role captures and RACI blurs. One paragraph makes the case.
Reassignments and the arguments they start
The scheduler takes the D on ship dates with sales as input; finance's veto is written down with a time limit; special products owns customer's own material. Each change names the group that loses a right and how it is likely to respond.
Where marks go in GM543 Unit 5
Decision rights maps in GM543 tend to separate on evidence. A matrix completed from the policy manual is accurate about the policy and silent about the organization, and many graders treat it as half the assignment. Losses also come from decisions defined too broadly, pricing or operations rather than a discount beyond list, because a broad decision cannot hold one decider. Ground slips when the framework is applied mechanically: several people marked D, or an input column filled with everyone. The better maps show the gap between assigned and actual rights and state what the gap costs in days or margin. A proposed reassignment that names who loses authority, and anticipates the friction that follows, typically earns the credit a tidier matrix does not.
Get a GM543 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
List five or six decisions that come up again and again where you work, and note who you believe signs off on each. Alongside the Unit 5 prompt and rubric, that list is enough for a free first map within 24-48h, drawn in RAPID or the scheme your section assigns, with written policy and working practice shown side by side.
GM543 Unit 5 questions, answered
Where does evidence of actual decision rights come from?
Recent examples, traced. Take a handful of decisions of each type and follow them: who proposed, who was consulted, who could have stopped it, and whose approval ended the discussion. Email threads, approval logs and meeting notes all help, and so does asking the people involved. Twenty examples is plenty for a course paper; even six can reveal a pattern if they are traced carefully.
Can one decision have two deciders?
In practice it often does, and that is usually the finding. In a finished design it should not: Rogers and Blenko insist the D sits with a single person. A map recording two deciders in current practice has diagnosed something, provided it then proposes which one keeps the right and what the other receives instead, such as an agree or an input role.
Is RAPID required, or would RACI work?
Use whichever the prompt names. RACI is common in project settings and suits questions about who does which task. RAPID is built for decisions and separates the right to veto from the right to decide, which matters when disputes are about who can say no. If the choice is open, a sentence explaining it shows judgment and costs almost nothing in length.