We are building our Accountability Chart for a clean exit, and we need to assign accountability for maintaining our new AI prompt library and automated marketing campaigns. Both our Head of Marketing and our Head of Operations claim this responsibility. How do we logically decide who owns this seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When new technology crosses departmental lines, it often triggers turf wars. To resolve this, you must look at the primary purpose of the seat, not just the tools being used. AI automation and prompt libraries are tools, just like email or spreadsheets, and they must be owned by the function they primarily support.

If the prompt library and automations are designed to generate leads and nurture prospects, they belong under the Head of Marketing seat. If the automations are designed to streamline order processing, customer support, or delivery, they belong under the Head of Operations seat.

Do not create a single, confusing AI seat that spans both departments. Instead, assign accountability for the specific tool and its outputs to the department head who relies on those results to hit their Scorecard measurables.

If you need a centralized repository for your company's AI protocols, your Head of Technology or an internal systems administrator can own the technical infrastructure seat. However, the actual prompt engineering and campaign execution must remain embedded within the departments that use them. This ensures that the people responsible for the final department metrics are also in control of the tools used to achieve them.