Both workflows and agentic systems are backwards-engineered from a business goal. Agents investigate their environments, evaluating and executing based on what they find via the protocols and interfaces that give it access to data repositories and other agents. Highly capable agents, like the ones we’re starting to see today, can uncover incompatibilities in the system and possibly devise workarounds.
When new information changes the implications of earlier data inputs, they can be designed to make updates without requiring another development and testing cycle. By virtue of examining its environment and commenting on it, agents can add efficiency in addition to carrying out a task.
The feared chaos, whether in the form of bad data “hallucinations” or agents mishandling their tasks, is, of course, a concern. But so were badly designed workflows, or business processes that violated regulations or alienated customers. In every case, the answer is better design and new forms of vigilance.
This brings up another architectural point that is emerging in the agentic AI world. There need to be new forms of governance and permissions, along with rules that confine the agent. Agents benefit from sub-agents in supervisory, security, and guardrail roles and other dimensions of oversight—not just to prevent bad things from happening, but to keep the ultimate supervisor, the human, in the loop.
In the world of agentic AI, humans are neither idle bystanders nor inventors of the next step the agent takes. People work with agentic systems as ultimate supervisors, arbitrating between approved execution and execution that must be stopped or unrolled. In that sense, the role is not different from other kinds of human management of complex processes.