We want to deploy AI agents to handle our standard operating procedures, but our leadership team does not know how to hold a software agent accountable. How do we adapt the GWC concept on our Accountability Chart to evaluate whether an AI agent is actually delivering on its role?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

An AI agent is a tool, not a person, which means it cannot hold a seat on your Accountability Chart or be directly evaluated on GWC, which stands for Get it, Want it, and have the Capacity to do it. Accountability must always rest with a human.

To solve this, you must assign the ownership of the AI agent to a specific, human-led seat on your Accountability Chart. The person in that seat must fully GWC the management of the AI.

First, they must Get it, meaning they thoroughly understand how the AI agent works, its operational limits, and how it executes the standard operating procedures. Second, they must Want it, meaning they take full responsibility for the agent's performance, metrics, and any errors it might make. Third, they must have the Capacity to manage it, meaning they have the time and technical capability to monitor its outputs, update its prompts, and troubleshoot issues.

If an AI customer service agent fails and sends an incorrect response to a client, the human owner of that seat is accountable, not the software. By structuring your Accountability Chart this way, you ensure that every automated workflow remains tightly managed. This disciplined approach prevents operational drift, maintains high quality control, and proves to buyers that your automated systems are stable and scalable.