It’s said that Apple coined the term "Directly Responsible Individual" (DRI) to describe the person responsible for ensuring that things get done within a project, no matter how many teams or stakeholders are involved.
This concept works well for a variety of obvious reasons, and I’m a fan of it too -- no need to reiterate those here. Instead, I had a quick thought about how the term’s naming itself reinforces its effectiveness.
Most companies have an equivalent term, even if it’s not DRI. At Google, for instance, the term "owner" is often used to mean roughly the same thing. The issue I see is that some people equate ownership with a kind of "benevolent dictatorship" -- the idea that because you own something, you make all the decisions (and supposedly they are better decisions because you are the most qualified person to make them).
This overlooks a crucial aspect of ownership: accountability. As the owner, you are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of whatever falls under your scope. Ownership demands much more than passively holding a title -- it requires making informed decisions, aligning stakeholders and managing expectations, proactively anticipating and addressing issues, continuously seeking improvements, etc.
Naming matters. What I love about DRI is that the phrase "directly responsible" explicitly highlights the accountability aspect, which is often the most important part.