Responsibility gets expensive when the person carrying it doesn't have the tools to do the job. A title won't debug a failing service, and an escalation path won't give someone the access they need to investigate it.
When work is under pressure, it's tempting to assign an owner and treat that as the decision. The name goes on the board. Everyone moves on. But if the person has to ask three other people for every step, the bottleneck has barely moved.
The assignment needs a second conversation. What can this person decide? What information can they see? Who can help with the part they don't know yet? Those answers change what the deadline means.
Sometimes the useful resource is a senior engineer's time. Sometimes it's a test environment or a maintenance window. The person doing the job should be able to explain what is missing without having to prove that they deserve help.
That doesn't mean handing out unrestricted access. Give the access the task needs, with a clear boundary and someone responsible for reviewing it. If the work changes, revisit the resources instead of leaving the original arrangement in place out of habit.
I also want the team to know what can wait. Asking somebody to own the urgent problem while keeping every previous commitment is a good way to hide the cost of the new priority.
Before asking why a task is still open, check whether the person has what the assignment requires. Putting a name beside a problem is the beginning of delegation. The resources have to follow.