AI agents are no longer limited to suggestion or support. In production environments, they schedule work, trigger actions, update records, and initiate downstream processes. They operate continuously, at speed, and often without direct human supervision.
This is not a future scenario. It is already happening. And as agents move into live environments, a quiet constraint is emerging. Not model quality. Not tooling. Identity.
The moment delegation shows up
In early deployments, AI agents are usually framed as helpers. They prepare responses. They gather information. They assist a human decision.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
But production systems do not stay in that mode for long. At some point, an agent is allowed to act on behalf of someone else.
Approve a step.
Trigger a workflow.
Update a system of record.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThat is the moment the problem appears.
Because most enterprise technology stacks were not designed for non-human actors that carry delegated authority.
Systems were built for people, not actors
Enterprise identity frameworks assume a simple model.
There is a user.
That user has a role.
That role grants permissions.
This works when the actor is human. It becomes fragile when the actor is software.
An AI agent does not behave like a user. It does not log in once and perform a bounded set of actions. It operates across systems, over time, often reacting to conditions rather than instructions.
Copying a human role and assigning it to an agent may get a pilot running. It does not survive scale.
What an agent really is in production
In production terms, an AI agent is not a tool.
It is not a feature.
It is not a user.
It is a delegated actor.
It acts on behalf of a principal. Sometimes that principal is a person. Sometimes it is a system. Often it is an organisational function.
Once that is acknowledged, the technical challenge becomes clearer.
The issue is not intelligence.
The issue is authority.
Delegation changes how failure looks
Traditional systems fail in visible ways.
They stop responding.
They throw errors.
They slow down.
Delegated systems fail differently.
They continue to operate.
They produce outcomes.
They follow rules that were technically correct.
What changes is the organisation’s ability to explain those outcomes
When an agent’s authority is unclear, failure does not look like a breakdown. It looks like confusion after the fact.
Four delegation bottlenecks that appear in production
Across early deployments, the same bottlenecks surface repeatedly.
1. Who is the principal?
When an agent takes an action, whose authority is it exercising? A named individual? A team? A policy? Without a clear principal, accountability dissolves quickly.
2. What is the delegation boundary?
Agents often begin with narrow permissions and quietly accumulate broader ones. Without explicit boundaries, delegation becomes implicit rather than designed.
3. What is the audit trail?
Logs can show what happened. They often fail to show why it happened or under whose authority. That distinction matters when outcomes are challenged.
4. How does delegation end?
Human access is routinely reviewed and revoked. Agent authority is rarely time-bound. Many deployments lack a clear mechanism for expiry or withdrawal.
None of these are model problems.
They are architectural ones.
Authority without ownership
In less prepared environments, agents work well in controlled scenarios.
They answer questions.
They complete contained tasks.
At scale, the picture changes.
An agent triggers an outcome that appears routine. A human approved the initial setup but later cannot explain what was actually authorised. The system behaved correctly.
The organisation struggles to explain the result.
In these moments, the risk is not malfunction.
It is authority without ownership.
No one disputes that the system worked as configured. The question that lingers is simpler, and harder.
Who was responsible for the delegated decision when it mattered?
Why this surfaces first in high-consequence systems
Systems that touch money, access, or irreversible decisions feel this tension early.
Not because they are slower, But because the cost of ambiguity is higher.
Delegation in these environments has always been carefully staged. Authority has moved in small steps, with human checkpoints embedded along the way.
AI compresses that staging.
What used to be gradual becomes immediate.
What used to be reviewed becomes automatic.
The technology works.
The environment hesitates.
What prepared environments do differently
In more prepared environments, delegation is designed, not improvised.
- agent identities are explicit and separately governed
- delegation is time-bound and task-bound, not open-ended
- every action has a traceable chain of authority
- there is a kill-switch and a clear human override path
These are not advanced controls.
They are basic architectural choices made early.
They do not slow systems down.
They make them survivable.
Architecture becomes the constraint
As AI systems move into production, the limiting factor is no longer what agents can do.
It is what organisations are prepared to let them do safely, predictably, and explainable.
In practice, teams slow down not because agents fail, but because no one can clearly explain who authorised the action.
They are the ones that treat delegation as a first-class design problem.
When software becomes an actor, identity stops being a background service.
It becomes infrastructure. And infrastructure, once stressed, reveals what it was really built for.
Dr. Gulzar Singh, Chartered Fellow – Banking and Technology; CEO, Phoenix Empire Ltd
