The framework / 04

Connections

Models can be connected through common elements, such as people, bodies, roles, responsibilities, etc. For example, an act may establish a role or grant authority. These connections help show how an arrangement works and what must be specified for its parts to work together. Sentence patterns and diagrams are tools to represent the models and make their connections explicit.

Roles and the exercise of authority

An appointment places a person in a role.

Example

The board appoints a person as chair. That person holds the role of chair.

The role identifies the capacity in which a function is performed.

Example

Someone holds the role of committee secretary. That role is assigned the function of supporting the committee's proceedings.

Responsibility states what carrying out a function consists in.

Example

A committee is assigned the function of reviewing all policies on a specific matter. It is charged with conducting the reviews, which may be specified in its terms of reference.

Duties may govern how responsibilities are carried out.

DutyResponsibility

may govern how it is carried out

Responsibility and authority are separate assignments that can support the same work.

Example

An officer is charged with preparing a policy review and has authority to request the information needed for it.

Responsibility identifies the work assigned; accountability identifies to whom the responsible role must answer for that work.

AccountabilityResponsibility

for

A duty identifies conduct that someone owes to another. Accountability identifies whom someone must answer to and what they must answer for. The person owed the duty need not be the person to whom they answer.

Example

A member has a duty to declare relevant interests and is answerable to the appointing body for complying with that duty.

A right to require something from a specific person or body corresponds to a duty owed by that person or body.

Example

A person has a right to receive reasons for a decision. The decision-maker owes that person a duty to provide reasons for the decision.

A power and the duties governing its exercise can bear on the same act in different respects.

Example

A committee has power to determine the outcome of an application. Its members have duties governing their participation in that determination, such as declaring any conflict of interest pertaining to the outcome of an application.

Authority gives someone the power to decide, while discretion gives someone a choice among options allowed under the arrangement.

Example

A delegate has authority to decide on the receivability of applications and discretion to accept late applications.

Reserving a matter to another person or body defines part of the scope of an authority.

Example

A committee approves routine policy changes, while changes that would have financial implications are reserved to the board.

Granting authority and directing action

Delegation grants authority to exercise a function within stated limits, provided the grantor has power to delegate.

Example

The board delegates a function to a committee. The committee has authority to exercise that function within the delegation's limits.

An arrangement may establish and retain accountability when a function is delegated.

Example

A board delegates a function to a committee and requires the committee to account to it for exercising that function.

Authorisation gives its recipient authority to perform the specified act within the stated conditions.

Example

An authorised officer permits another person to issue a specified notice. The recipient has authority to perform that act within the stated conditions.

A person with authority to direct action may exercise it by issuing a direction on the matter concerned.

Example

A person has authority to issue a direction on a particular matter and directs another person to take specified action.

An authorised direction may give rise to a duty to comply under it.

Example

A manager directs an employee to prepare a report within the scope of their employment. The direction is lawful and reasonable. The employee has a duty to comply.

Advice and formal decisions

Someone is asked to contribute advice based on their role or expertise.

Example

A policy author consults a specialist on a proposed provision. The specialist provides advice within the scope of that consultation and their expertise.

Advice may include a recommendation proposing an action.

Example

A specialist advises on the implications of a proposal and recommends that it be amended.

Providing a recommendation and deciding on it are distinct responsibilities with distinct accountabilities.

Example

A committee recommends that the board approve a policy. The board decides whether to approve it.

A resolution expresses a body's decision made under its terms of reference and standing orders.

Example

A committee decides a matter through the formal method prescribed by its standing orders.

A resolution can be a body's formal decision to make a recommendation.

Example

A committee resolves to recommend a proposal to the Board.

A resolution can be the formal decision through which approval is given.

Example

The board resolves to approve a policy.

A resolution can be the formal decision through which a delegation is made, where the body has the power to delegate.

Example

The board resolves to delegate a function to a committee.

Approval of specified terms and authorisation to act on them are connected, but separate, acts.

Example

The board approves the terms of an agreement. A separate authorisation permits an officer to sign it.

Reporting and scrutiny

Reporting can provide a means of giving an account within a specified accountability relationship.

Example

An officer reports to a committee on the exercise of delegated authority.

Reports can provide information for oversight of a function or business area.

Example

A committee receives reports on the operation of a policy. Those reports provide information for the committee to discharge its duties on the matter.

Specified powers enable a person or body to perform its oversight role within its remit.

Example

A committee oversees an area and has authority to request information, make recommendations, or direct action within its remit.

Monitoring provides information over time that a review can use to assess adequacy and effectiveness.

Example

An officer monitors the operation of a policy over time.

Assurance informs oversight.

Example

A committee receives assurance about the effectiveness of a particular risk control.

Review findings can provide reasons for a recommendation proposing action.

Example

A review identifies an operational issue and recommends a change to the body authorised to decide it for implementation by management.

Interests and duties

A person has an interest that may impair their performance of a duty.

Identify the interest, the duty, and the circumstances in which they may conflict.

A person owes duties which may interfere with each other and create a conflict for the person in their role.

Identify each duty, to whom it is owed, and the circumstances in which the conflict arises.

Further connected patterns

The patterns below represent models that combine several governance relationships around a role, an outcome, or the exercise of authority.

A role carries responsibility for something. Its holder has authority to take specified action in carrying out that responsibility.

Someone has authority to act. They have responsibilities concerning its exercise and are answerable to someone for its exercise.

A role occupies a particular place in a hierarchy. Its holder reports to someone on specified matters.

Plain Governance, developed by Dr Julien Maréchal. © 2026 The Governance Practice.

Original materials: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalCC BY 4.0. Source. Scope and attribution.

Logos, third-party material, and website software are excluded.

Sources

Sources

These works inform the approach. The framework’s explanations, examples, and tools are developed by Plain Governance.

Framework background: Austin, How to do things with words, 1975; Austin, Philosophical papers, 1979; Maréchal, Comment faire les choses : du pluralisme des descriptions de l’action, 2010; Fillmore, Frame semantics, 1982; Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe, The Berkeley FrameNet project, 1998.