Naming your AI and putting it on the org chart shifts accountability away from people. Here’s how I mark where AI starts, where it stops, and who owns each step.
Managers checking a named agent's work 16% less is the finding that sells the whole map. "If nobody checks, that's your gap" is the step I would run first, since the risk sits exactly where AI hands work back with no name on the check.
The "Mr. FIRST NAME" emails got me lol, I get those too and you're right that it tells you a lot about how the company runs behind the scenes. I run a lot of my business with a small team of bots and the rule that's kept me out of trouble is basically your middle label, they draft and a person says yes before anything goes out. Managers checking a named agent's work 16% less than an unnamed tool is kind of wild though, I would've guessed the opposite
Really enjoyed your article. Being clear in the human that is accountable is critical. It’s easy to take the kudos - when something goes sideways it’s important to know how we are going to solve it and who is accountable for the AI work.
It sounds simple when you read it, but it's actually skipped all the time. Clarity on the process like this, including ownership, is really helpful (and important). Thanks for highlighting it Joel.
Your cold open is the failure mode the map cannot prevent on its own: those bad pitches came from steps someone had labeled "AI does it" and stopped auditing, and that is the label that decays first because nothing about it forces a second look. The map needs an expiry date, a scheduled recheck of the fully automated steps, or within a quarter the real workflow and the documented one are two different things.
A tool with a name on the org chart still has nobody to fire.
Exactly 👍
Managers checking a named agent's work 16% less is the finding that sells the whole map. "If nobody checks, that's your gap" is the step I would run first, since the risk sits exactly where AI hands work back with no name on the check.
Exactly Daniel!
The "Mr. FIRST NAME" emails got me lol, I get those too and you're right that it tells you a lot about how the company runs behind the scenes. I run a lot of my business with a small team of bots and the rule that's kept me out of trouble is basically your middle label, they draft and a person says yes before anything goes out. Managers checking a named agent's work 16% less than an unnamed tool is kind of wild though, I would've guessed the opposite
Really enjoyed your article. Being clear in the human that is accountable is critical. It’s easy to take the kudos - when something goes sideways it’s important to know how we are going to solve it and who is accountable for the AI work.
It sounds simple when you read it, but it's actually skipped all the time. Clarity on the process like this, including ownership, is really helpful (and important). Thanks for highlighting it Joel.
Your cold open is the failure mode the map cannot prevent on its own: those bad pitches came from steps someone had labeled "AI does it" and stopped auditing, and that is the label that decays first because nothing about it forces a second look. The map needs an expiry date, a scheduled recheck of the fully automated steps, or within a quarter the real workflow and the documented one are two different things.
Exactly Wyatt!