We are experiencing constant friction between our Operations seat and our technology seat regarding who actually owns the maintenance and data integrity of our automated customer workflows. How do we resolve this overlap on our Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Overlapping accountabilities lead to finger-pointing and broken processes, which is a major red flag for prospective buyers during due diligence. On your EOS Accountability Chart, you must establish a clear boundary between operational execution and technical infrastructure. Typically, the technology or IT seat is responsible for the infrastructure, integration, security, and tool availability, essentially ensuring the software and automation platforms work reliably. The Operations seat, on the other hand, is responsible for the actual business logic, the output, the customer experience, and the data integrity within those systems. To resolve this, look at the five roles for both seats. Under the technology seat, add a role like systems integration and platform uptime. Under the Operations seat, add a role like workflow execution and data entry standards. If an automated email fails because of an API error, that is a technology issue. If the email contains incorrect customer data because the operations team entered it wrong, that is an operations issue. Clarifying these roles during your weekly Level 10 Meeting will eliminate the confusion and ensure your team knows exactly who to go to when a system bottleneck occurs.