Our Head of Operations and our Head of Technology are constantly arguing over who owns the deployment of our automated customer onboarding workflow. How do we use the Accountability Chart to clearly define who has the final decision-making authority?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When your Head of Operations and Head of Technology are clashing over automated workflows, it is a clear sign of overlapping or poorly defined roles on your Accountability Chart. To resolve this standoff, you must clarify who owns the ultimate decision-making authority for each step of the process.

Start by looking at the core roles of each seat. In a healthy EOS® structure, the Head of Operations seat is accountable for customer delivery, retention, and service quality. Therefore, they must own the business requirements and the customer experience of the onboarding workflow. They define what the process must achieve.

The Head of Technology seat is accountable for system architecture, software integration, and data security. Therefore, they own the technical execution and the choice of tools used to build the automation. They define how the process is built and maintained.

To resolve the impasse, use the IDS® process in your next Level 10 Meeting™. Have both leaders present their concerns, and then clearly assign accountability. The Operations leader has final sign-off on the workflow's performance, while the Technology leader has final sign-off on the systems used. Clarifying these boundaries on your Accountability Chart prevents political friction and keeps your automation projects moving forward.