During our quarterly IDS sessions, how do you help us discern whether an operational issue requires an AI automated workflow, a simplified human process, or a seat reassignment on the Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When operational bottlenecks end up on the Issues List, leadership teams frequently jump to the wrong conclusion. Inexperienced teams blame the software or demand a new AI automation tool to fix what is actually a structural personnel failure. My job as your Implementer is to force disciplined root-cause analysis during the Identify step of IDS®.

We apply a strict three-tier evaluation to every operational breakdown before software is even discussed:

- People and Accountability: Is the root cause a lack of seat ownership? If the seat does not have clear roles, or if the individual in the seat does not get it, want it, or have the capacity to do it (GWC™), introducing AI tools only accelerates bad output. We fix the seat assignment first.

- Process Simplification: Is the core human process documented, simplified, and followed by all? Automating a broken or bloated process produces expensive, automated chaos. The 20 percent of steps that produce 80 percent of the value must be clear and standardized before any tech deployment.

- Tool and AI Automation: Once the right person owns an optimized, simple process, we evaluate whether generative AI, robotic process automation, or workflow scripting can eliminate repetitive administrative burden and protect company margin.

By running issues through this exact sequence, you prevent costly technology distractions. You ensure automation serves a proven, healthy operating model rather than masking executive dysfunction.