We want to leverage AI to automate our service delivery, but we cannot decide if we should create a dedicated AI Operations seat or if we should expect every seat to run their own AI workflows. How do we structure this?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Do not create a separate AI Operations seat unless that seat is solely responsible for building and maintaining the infrastructure of your AI systems. If you create a separate seat and make them responsible for everyone's AI output, you will break the core EOS principle of individual accountability. The correct approach is to separate system maintenance from system utilization. You should have one seat, typically under your Operations or Technology department, that is accountable for designing, implementing, and maintaining the AI tools and workflows. This is the structural owner of the technology. However, every other seat on your Accountability Chart must remain fully accountable for their own deliverables, regardless of whether they use AI to produce them. For example, your marketing team is still accountable for lead generation, your sales team is still accountable for close rates, and your service delivery team is still accountable for client satisfaction. Using AI is simply a tool, much like using an email client or a CRM. If your delivery team uses AI to write client reports, they must still GWC the delivery seat and own the quality of those reports. You cannot allow team members to blame technology for missed measurables or bad deliverables. Keep accountability aligned with the output, not the tool.