We want to add an AI-Workflow Automation seat to our Accountability Chart to boost our EBITDA before we sell, but we cannot decide whether this seat reports to our Head of Technology or our Head of Operations. How do we structurally place this role to avoid constant turf wars?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Adding an AI-Workflow Automation seat is a smart move to increase your operating leverage, but placing it incorrectly on your Accountability Chart will lead to major internal friction. To determine whether this seat reports to Technology or Operations, you must look at the primary outcome you want to achieve.

If the goal of the seat is to write custom code, manage APIs, and oversee your core database security, it belongs under your Head of Technology. This is a technical infrastructure role that requires deep systems oversight.

However, if the primary goal of the seat is to streamline daily workflows, eliminate manual data entry, and help your staff use AI tools to serve customers faster, it belongs under your Head of Operations. Operations is responsible for how the work actually gets done. Technology should support the operations team, but operations must own the ultimate outcome of the workflows.

In most small to mid-sized businesses preparing for an exit, the greatest value comes from operational efficiency rather than proprietary tech development. Therefore, placing the AI-Workflow Automation seat under Operations is usually the right call. The Head of Operations ensures the tools are actually adopted by the staff, while the technology team simply keeps the pipes connected. Clearly define the five roles for this seat and assign it to the department where it will have the most direct impact on your daily EBITDA.