Agent Team Map
A one-week paid diagnostic for COO and operations leads: map 10–20 recurring flows, assign human and agent roles, and run one bounded trial.
What happens next
- 1. Context We review the situation and constraints.
- 2. Fit We recommend an appropriate next step.
- 3. Scope If relevant, we discuss scope.
Decide where AI fits your work, and who remains accountable
Your team has recurring work that passes between people, tools and approvals. Before adding more agents, decide which flows need one, what it should own, and where a person must remain in control.
Agent Team Map is a one-week paid diagnostic for COOs and operations leads at service or software firms with roughly 20–200 staff. You leave with a human-and-agent team design, one bounded working trial, and a priced plan for the next build step if one is justified.
What you receive
A map of 10–20 recurring flows. For each, we document the trigger, inputs, accepted output, current owner, handoffs and exceptions. We assess frequency, context that must carry between runs, judgment, approvals and whether someone is waiting for a response.
A recommended form for each flow. Not every flow needs a new agent:
| Form | When it earns its place |
|---|---|
| No new automation | A person, existing tool or checklist already handles the work well |
| Script | The work follows clear rules and the maintenance cost is worthwhile |
| On-demand agent | Judgment is needed, but the work can start from a documented brief |
| Existing role | A current human or agent role can own the work without adding a new seat |
| Dedicated agent | Ongoing context, response expectations or access boundaries justify one |
| Coordinating role | Several different flows need prioritization and conflict resolution |
A human-to-agent responsibility map. It names the producer, reviewer, decision owner and exception route. Data access and approval limits are explicit; handing work to an agent does not hand it unrestricted authority.
One script-class agent trial activated in week one. We select one low-risk flow and run one manually invoked script using sample inputs or exports you provide, with one reviewed output, in an agreed test or isolated environment. No new integrations or persistent service are included. The trial has an agreed output check, visible human review and a way to switch it off. It is not a production rollout or a promise to automate every mapped flow.
A trial scorecard and next-step proposal. We record owner/reviewer minutes and coordination handoffs per accepted output, alongside quality, exceptions and running cost. The readout recommends keep, change or stop. We compare the current and trial paths on comparable inputs using the same acceptance checks, including setup, review, failures and manual recovery. If the sample cannot support a useful comparison, we say so. If a build is justified, you receive a separately scoped, pre-priced sprint with its access needs and acceptance criteria. You can also stop with the map.
The week
| Stage | Work |
|---|---|
| Days 1–2 | Three stakeholder interviews and review of existing workflow examples; agree the flow map and trial candidate |
| Days 3–4 | One working session to settle ownership and approvals; activate and observe the bounded trial |
| Day 5 | Readout, responsibility map, trial evidence and the scoped next-step proposal |
The week starts when the relevant people, representative examples and permissions for the trial are ready. We agree output checks before running it. No percentage improvement, staffing reduction or autonomous outcome is promised.
Agent Team Map or AI Operating Cell?
Agent Team Map
| Scope | Work |
|---|---|
| Owns | Allocation across recurring flows, oversight design and one bounded trial |
| Does not own | Production rollout, multiple agents, ongoing operation or organization-wide change |
| Handoff | A build-ready scope and price if useful |
AI Operating Cell
| Scope | Work |
|---|---|
| Owns | Implementation of one selected workflow, its integrations and operating controls |
| Does not own | Mapping every department or taking over business decisions |
| Handoff | A separately agreed pilot with monitoring, recovery and an accountable operating owner |
Good fit
You can name repeated work, a person accountable for its outputs, and a low-risk candidate for a trial. You want a usable allocation decision, not an agent added to every job title. This is not an emergency production fix, a staff-replacement commitment or a company-wide transformation program.
Already know the one workflow to change? Start with the AI-Ready Operations Sprint.
Start with a recurring workflow your team wants to handle differently.
Related articles
Why Your AI Cost Audit Should Start with Architecture, Not Pricing
Map AI task flows, billable usage, retries, and current rates before choosing architecture changes or provider pricing.
AI StrategyWhy AI Wrappers Fail and Platforms Survive: Integration as Architecture
Why thin AI wrappers over foundation model APIs fail while integrated platforms persist: the architectural argument for integration depth as the real AI investment, and what survives when the model changes.
AI StrategyThe AI Procurement Audit: Clauses, Exit Paths, and Runtime Risks Technical Teams Should Review
A technical AI procurement audit for enterprise teams: runtime dependencies, data portability, model substitution, audit evidence, exit paths, and operating continuity before contracts harden.
Discuss your Agent Team Map path
Tell us about your system, the decision ahead, and the constraints. We will review the context and recommend the next step.
Direct contact with a principal engineer.