Firm recommends phased response
The Info-Tech Research Group recommended a three-phase approach:
establishing governance authority and guardrails
mapping the agent lifecycle and classifying agents by risk,
and operationalizing accountability through defined ownership and executive reporting
Manish Jain, principal research director at Info-Tech, says in the report that “the right agentic AI governance model starts with treating every agent as a persistent digital actor without conscience or incentive,” adding that governance “must enable innovation” rather than rely solely on upfront approvals.
The firm pointed to a case reported by Palo Alto Networks involving 3CX, in which a low-code automation agent with persistent credentials and no clear human owner caused cascading failures once a downstream system changed, as an example of the accountability gaps organizations face.
HRD previously reported that a growing number of companies have stopped calling their AI systems tools. They give them names, job titles and a spot on the org chart, and according to a research, that shift comes with a cost nobody planned for: The moment managers start thinking of an AI as a coworker rather than software, they start reviewing its work less carefully.
Governed property, companies can gain a lot with the use of agentic AI, according to previous reports: