We are creating a new seat on our Accountability Chart for an Operations Orchestrator who will oversee our AI automation, but we do not know how to define their GWC™ without overlapping with our existing IT and operations seats. How do we clearly define this new role to avoid internal turf wars?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Turf wars occur when roles on your Accountability Chart lack clear, non-overlapping measurables and accountabilities. You must clearly separate the technical infrastructure seat from the operational process seat.

Your IT seat is responsible for system uptime, security, and software licensing. They do not own the actual business processes. Your new Operations Orchestrator seat is responsible for identifying cumbersome processes and using AI to streamline them to improve overall business productivity.

To define the GWC™ for this new seat, ensure the candidate truly meets these standards:

- Get It: They understand how business processes flow, how different software tools connect, and how to use prompt engineering and automated workflows to eliminate manual labor.

- Want It: They are genuinely driven by operational efficiency, finding joy in automating repetitive tasks and freeing up human capacity.

- Capacity to Do It: They possess the technical aptitude and the communication skills to train and guide other team members through workflow changes without causing panic.

List these exact accountabilities under the seat on your Accountability Chart. Make sure their primary measurable is operational efficiency, such as reducing the average time to complete core processes or increasing revenue per employee.

By keeping their focus strictly on process optimization rather than software maintenance, you keep a clear line of division between IT and operations, ensuring both seats work together harmoniously to build a highly scalable, exit-ready business.