We are using AI tools to automate large portions of our underwriting and document review, which has freed up a lot of time for our analysts. However, they are now confused about what they are actually responsible for, and their current seats on the Accountability Chart feel outdated. How do we redefine their roles to reflect an AI-powered operating model?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When technology automates core tasks, you must immediately redefine the seats on your Accountability Chart to avoid drift and low productivity. You cannot rely on legacy job descriptions. Start by looking at the outcome you need from these analysts. AI can handle the fast processing, data retrieval, and initial document synthesis, but it cannot handle strategic judgment, exception handling, or final verification. Redefine the analyst seat with new, clear roles that focus on these higher-value activities. For example, their five roles should change from manual data compilation to AI prompt optimization, outlier analysis, compliance auditing, and stakeholder advisory. Run each analyst through the GWC™ filter for this newly defined seat. Some legacy analysts who excelled at routine, repetitive data entry might lack the analytical capacity or conative desire to perform deep strategic interpretation. If they do not GWC™ the new AI-augmented seat, you must find a different seat for them or bring in new talent. Ensure their weekly Level 10 Meeting™ metrics reflect these new responsibilities, measuring things like system accuracy rates or exception resolution times rather than volume of documents processed.