We have decided to hire a dedicated AI operations engineer to build custom internal integrations, but we are arguing about where this seat lives on our Accountability Chart. Should they report to the Integrator to drive company-wide efficiency, or do they belong under the technology seat? How do we define their GWC™?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Resolving disputes about where a new seat lives on the Accountability Chart requires you to look at the reporting structure that best drives your overall business strategy. An AI operations engineer is not a traditional IT support person; they are an operational builder who designs, integrates, and maintains your digital workflows. For this reason, placing them directly under the Technology seat is typically the most effective structure, provided your Head of Technology reports to the Integrator and understands the strategic vision of the company. If your Head of Technology is purely focused on infrastructure and security, placing this new seat under the operations seat may be necessary to ensure they are building tools that actually drive business efficiency.

When defining the GWC™ (Get It, Want It, Capacity) for this seat, you must look past simple technical certifications. To Get It, the candidate must understand how operational bottlenecks impact your bottom line and how different systems connect. To Want It, they must be energized by the challenge of continuous process improvement rather than just writing clean code. For Capacity, they must possess the conative strength to solve complex, unstructured integration problems and the communication skills to train team members.

Use your weekly Level 10 Meeting™ to monitor their integration roadmap and ensure their quarterly Rocks are directly aligned with simplifying your core business processes and increasing your revenue-per-FTE.