DRI Rapid Decision Method
Give one owner written input, a final call, and committed champions.
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 98%
Coinbase's DRI method assigns one directly responsible individual to each decision and surrounds that owner with transparent written input. The DRI may come from product, engineering, operations, legal, design, marketing, or another function depending on the decision. Contributors record their perspective and disagreements in a shared RAPID document. The DRI absorbs the evidence but does not seek an outcome that makes everyone comfortable; the final call must serve the customer, user, and business. Afterward, contributors do more than disagree and commit. They disagree and champion, explaining and evangelizing the decision as if it were their own. The mechanism replaces relationship-driven influence and committee compromise with explicit ownership, documented dissent, and unified execution. Coinbase uses the same format from individual teams to executive decisions.
Origin
Saxena describes the method as part of Coinbase's public decision-making culture. He contrasts it with cross-functional alignment processes that can produce slow, least-common-denominator outcomes.
Core principles
- 01Every consequential decision needs one directly responsible individual.
- 02Written input preserves dissent without requiring consensus.
- 03The owner serves the customer and business, not every contributor's preference.
- 04After the call, disagreement becomes active championship.
- 05Clear authority shortens decisions that relationships and committees prolong.
How to run it
- 1
Assign the DRI
Choose the single person directly responsible for the decision. Select the function closest to the nature of the issue rather than defaulting automatically to product or an executive.
Pro tip Write the DRI's name at the top of the decision document.
Watch out Two final owners means there is no final owner.
- 2
Collect written perspectives
Ask relevant functions to provide their evidence, risks, and recommendation in writing. Make every input visible to the DRI and other contributors.
Pro tip Use one shared document so private lobbying does not replace transparent reasoning.
Watch out Written input should inform the decision, not become a vote.
- 3
Record explicit disagreement
Let contributors state that they disagree and explain why. Preserve the objection so the DRI can evaluate it without forcing artificial consensus.
Watch out Silenced disagreement reappears later as passive resistance.
- 4
Make the final call
The DRI decides after considering all input. Optimize for the customer, user, and business rather than the option that annoys the fewest people.
Pro tip State the decision and the reasoning that outweighed the main objections.
Watch out Do not reopen the decision simply because a senior stakeholder remains uncomfortable.
- 5
Disagree and champion
Once the decision is made, every contributor supports and evangelizes it to the wider team. They act as if it were their own call while execution proceeds.
Pro tip Ask dissenters to explain the decision publicly; doing so tests whether commitment is real.
Watch out Passive compliance is weaker than championship and allows organizational drag to continue.
- 6
Scale the same pattern
Use the identical decision shape for team-level and executive-level work. Repetition turns ownership and championship into an operating culture.
In the wild
For a Coinbase project, a DRI can receive written perspectives from legal, operations, engineering, design, and product in one RAPID document. A contributor may explicitly disagree and record the reasons. The DRI still makes the call, after which that contributor is expected to champion the result to the rest of the organization.
→ The decision moves at the speed of the accountable owner rather than the strength of private relationships among functional leaders.
Common mistakes
Turning input into a vote
The process seeks informed ownership, not consensus. Counting preferences recreates committee design.
Choosing the least offensive option
A compromise everyone can tolerate may still be wrong for the customer or business. The DRI must make that trade explicitly.
Committing without championing
Quiet compliance leaves room for passive resistance. Saxena's method requires active support after the decision.
Is it for you?
Best for
Cross-functional organizations that need fast, accountable decisions amid legitimate disagreement.
Not ideal for
Decisions requiring formal unanimous consent, independent safety approval, or legally mandated multi-party authorization.
From the episode
Sanchan Saxena (VP of Product at Coinbase) on the inside story of how Airbnb made it through Covid; what he’s learned from Brian Chesky, Brian Armstrong, and Kevin Systrom; much more