AI Agents Need To Be Managed As If They are Human

Forbes - Mar 19th, 2025

The rise of agentic AI is prompting organizations to reconsider their readiness for this technology, which allows AI agents to perform tasks with minimal human intervention. According to a KPMG survey, over half of the organizations are exploring AI agents, with 37% in pilot phases, although only 12% have fully deployed them. This shift is driven by economic pressures and the need for efficiency. However, effective implementation requires formulating a strategy and setting up an infrastructure that aligns with compliance processes. Key figures like Rodrigo Madanes from EY and Michele Franceschini from Bloomberg emphasize the importance of empowering, delegating, and verifying AI agents to mimic traditional management principles, ensuring data accessibility and building trust in non-deterministic AI workflows.

The implications of agentic AI extend beyond technology, requiring a cultural shift within organizations. Leaders like Chris Savage from Wistia and Arnab Mishra from Xactly highlight the need for employees to adapt to new workflows and collaborate with digital assistants, which may face resistance due to a lack of understanding. While startups may naturally embrace these changes, larger enterprises might struggle with the cultural transition. Success will hinge on effectively delegating routine tasks to AI, allowing human workers to focus on creative and strategic roles. Ultimately, adopting agentic AI is not just about technology but also about evolving mindsets and skillsets to leverage AI's full potential.

Digital Transformation Agentic Ai Ai Agents Kpmg Survey Rodrigo Madanes Michele Franceschini Chris Savage Arnab Mishra Cultural Shift

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant discussion on the topic of agentic AI, highlighting both the potential benefits and challenges of its implementation in organizations. It is generally clear and well-structured, making complex ideas accessible to a broad audience. However, the article would benefit from greater transparency and source diversity, as it relies heavily on industry experts without providing sufficient empirical evidence or independent perspectives. Additionally, while it touches on the potential for controversy, it does not fully explore the ethical and societal implications of AI integration. Overall, the article offers valuable insights but could be strengthened by addressing these areas.

Accuracy

The news story provides several claims and statistics regarding the adoption and implementation of agentic AI in organizations. For instance, it cites a KPMG survey stating that 51% of organizations are exploring AI agents, and 37% are piloting them, while only 12% have deployed them. These figures are specific and seem plausible, but the article does not provide direct access to the survey or its methodology, which is crucial for verifying these claims. Additionally, the story quotes various experts discussing the challenges and benefits of AI agents, which adds depth but lacks empirical evidence or case studies to support these assertions. Overall, the article presents a generally accurate picture but would benefit from more detailed sourcing and verification of the claims made.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the positive aspects and potential of agentic AI, such as increased efficiency and the ability to handle routine tasks, as noted by experts like Chris Savage and Michele Franceschini. However, it does acknowledge some challenges, such as cultural shifts and data governance issues. Despite this, the article could be more balanced by including perspectives from critics or those skeptical about the rapid adoption of AI agents. The voices in the article are predominantly from industry insiders, which might skew the narrative towards a more optimistic view without adequately addressing potential downsides or ethical concerns.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the discussion of agentic AI. The language is accessible, and the tone is neutral, making the complex subject matter more understandable for a general audience. Key points and expert opinions are clearly presented, which aids in comprehension. However, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of technical terms, such as 'agentic AI,' to ensure all readers have a clear understanding of the topic.

Source quality

The article cites several industry experts, including Rodrigo Madanes from EY and Michele Franceschini from Bloomberg, which lends some credibility to the narrative. However, the reliance on these sources without a broader range of perspectives or independent studies limits the depth of the analysis. The article would benefit from including academic or independent research sources to provide a more comprehensive view of the topic. Additionally, the article mentions a KPMG survey but does not provide a link or detailed information about it, which affects the reliability of the cited statistics.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in several areas. It does not provide access to the KPMG survey or explain the methodology behind the statistics presented. Furthermore, while it quotes several experts, it does not detail how these experts were selected or if they have any potential conflicts of interest. The article could improve transparency by offering more context about the sources and data used, as well as clarifying the basis for the claims made by the quoted experts. This would help readers better understand the potential biases and limitations of the information presented.

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A471UTvJW4I