Most programmes have a RAID log. Fewer programmes use it in a way that genuinely improves outcomes.
The difference is rarely tooling. It’s the operating model: how consistently teams log items, how quickly ownership is assigned, how statuses are controlled, and how decisions and actions are connected back to delivery work.
A Jira-based RAID approach can work extremely well because it brings governance into the same place delivery teams already work. But it only stays effective if the process is simple, role-clear, and enforced.
When it isn’t, RAID becomes one of two things: a static register that nobody trusts, or an overflowing list of loosely-written tickets that nobody can triage.
This guide explains how to run RAID management in Jira as an everyday delivery control. It focuses on practical mechanics: ticket creation discipline, lifecycle states, quality standards, and the governance rhythms that keep RAID “alive” without slowing the programme.
What “good” looks like for RAID in Jira
- Every entry is actionable: A risk needs mitigation, an issue needs resolution, a decision needs implications, an action needs completion criteria.
- The ticket tells the story without a meeting: context, impact, action, and done-state are all visible.
- Ownership is explicit and stable: owner assignment is non-negotiable.
- Statuses reflect reality: status semantics are controlled, not loosely interpreted.
Set up ticket creation so it captures RAID cleanly
A Jira process should make it easy to do the right thing. A common pattern is to log everything as a single Jira issue type and classify it using a dedicated field such as “RAID” (Risk / Assumption / Issue / Decision / Action).
To make this work in practice, enforce a small number of required fields at creation time:
- RAID classification (Risk, Assumption, Issue, Decision, Action)
- Short summary written as an outcome/problem statement
- Description (structured, not free-form narrative)
- Owner (single accountable person)
- Priority / criticality (simple consistent scale)
- Affected area (module, workstream, process, capability)
A description structure that prevents vague tickets
- Context: what triggered this entry
- Impact: what could happen / is happening if not addressed
- Evidence: observed facts (test result, workshop output, dependency)
- Next step: immediate action required
- Exit test: how you confirm resolved/mitigated
Define what each RAID type means
Teams often label items inconsistently. Define each category in plain language and keep it visible in Jira guidance:
- Risk: future uncertainty with potential delivery impact.
- Assumption: condition treated as true until validated.
- Issue: current problem reducing quality or blocking progress.
- Decision: agreed direction with design/scope/governance implications.
- Action: concrete task with clear completion condition.
A useful rule: if the item doesn’t change anyone’s next steps, it isn’t RAID yet—it’s commentary.
Make status flow meaningful and lightweight
A practical lifecycle looks like this:
Agree what each status means and don’t allow drift: long-open tickets indicate triage problems; stalled in-progress tickets indicate weak ownership; closed-without-evidence tickets reduce trust.
Introduce quality gates for RAID tickets
To keep the log usable, a RAID ticket should not pass triage unless it has:
- a clear problem/outcome statement
- a single accountable owner
- a next step that is actually doable
- an exit test (how we know it’s done)
This discipline saves time. Poor-quality tickets create more meetings, not fewer.
Connect RAID to delivery work
RAID is not separate from delivery; it is delivery governance.
- link risks to affected epics/features
- link issues to defects/tasks/stories
- link decisions to design/configuration changes
- link actions to implementation tasks
A simple rule helps: nothing important should exist only in RAID. If it requires work, it should have a delivery task linked to it.
Run a rhythm that keeps RAID current
- Lightweight triage: frequent and short, focused on new items and ownership.
- Delivery sync: remove blockers and confirm decisions.
- Governance checkpoint: confirm critical mitigations and decision closure.
Don’t rely on one weekly RAID meeting to do everything. Day-to-day ownership sits with delivery leads; governance focuses on cross-stream dependencies and escalation.
Prevent the most common RAID anti-patterns
- RAID as a dumping ground: log what needs governance, not all observations.
- Decisions with no implications: a decision needs explicit downstream change.
- Actions that are actually risks: if no authority exists yet, classify appropriately.
- Closed means forgotten: closure must include evidence and confidence.
How PCL Typically Addresses This
- Standardise RAID category semantics for consistent classification and trusted dashboards.
- Enforce triage quality gates (owner, next step, exit test) to reduce governance noise.
- Link RAID entries to epics/tasks/defects so mitigations execute in normal delivery flow.
- Separate triage from escalation so governance remains lightweight and effective.
The goal is a RAID log that reduces rework and surprises—without creating extra process layers.
FAQ
How do we decide whether something is a risk or an issue?
If it is happening now and blocking progress or reducing quality, treat it as an issue. If it is a future uncertainty, treat it as a risk.
What makes a RAID entry “good enough” to log?
It should include a clear statement, single owner, next step, and exit test.
How do we stop RAID tickets from being ignored?
Make ownership non-negotiable and ensure status changes reflect actual progress.
Should decisions be tracked in Jira or separate docs?
Tracking decisions in Jira works well when implications and follow-on tasks are linked to delivery work.
How do we keep RAID lightweight?
Use a simple workflow, minimal required fields, and short frequent triage.
Make RAID a control system, not a register
A Jira-based RAID approach becomes powerful when treated as a living mechanism for ownership, evidence, and decision closure. Done well, it reduces surprises, accelerates resolution, and provides transparent governance.