Related question
Should each department build its own AI agent?
Short answer
No. Building a separate agent for every department recreates the shadow technology problem companies spent two decades cleaning up, and it accumulates debt that lands on the organization later. Coordinate before you proliferate.
The temptation is understandable. Each department has a distinct workflow, each has an advocate who is excited, and each can now build something without a large budget or a formal project.
What that produces is a collection of systems that do not talk to each other, do not share definitions, and are individually maintained by whoever built them until that person moves on. It is the same pattern as unmanaged spreadsheets and unsanctioned applications, with the added complication that these systems can take action rather than just report.
There is a real question underneath this about when an agent makes sense at all. Agents are worth considering when a workflow is genuinely too complex for rule-based automation, when the decision tree has become expensive to maintain, or when the work involves messy, unstructured information. If a process is rule-based with a stable decision tree and structured data, an agent adds cost and fragility without adding capability.
The filter we use is three words: valuable, feasible, and safe to automate. Then start simple, validate the value, and build trust over time.