Jul 2026· Journal of Information & Knowledge Management· 0 citations
TL;DR
This paper argues that delegation, not architecture, is the primary variable that governance frameworks for agentic AI must address and that existing frameworks, including NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act, do not adequately operationalise governance at the delegation level.
Abstract
Autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents are no longer advisory. They execute transactions, orchestrate multi-agent pipelines and modify enterprise data with minimal human intervention. Yet the governance frameworks organisations rely on were built for a different artefact: one that recommends rather than acts. This paper argues that delegation, not architecture, is the primary variable that governance frameworks for agentic AI must address and that existing frameworks, including NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act, do not adequately operationalise governance at the delegation level. A multi-corpus bibliometric analysis of 795 peer-reviewed publications (2020-2026) provides evidence of three structurally isolated scholarly communities (AI ethics governance, MLOps operationalisation and agentic enterprise integration) developing in parallel without convergence, leaving the high-autonomy, high-accountability quadrant theoretically underserved. Grounded in three complementary theoretical pillars (IT Governance theory, Socio-Technical Systems theory and IS Artefact Delegation theory), we derive the Delegated Agentic Governance Model (DAGM): a conditional governance matrix that assigns governance requirements to each level of autonomy delegated to AI agents across three tiers (Advisory, Operational, Autonomous). We introduce Generative AI governance debt as a prerequisite construct, articulate seven design principles and derive three falsifiable propositions linking delegation-governance alignment to enterprise failure rates. The DAGM provides AI managers with an immediately actionable governance readiness instrument and establishes the theoretical foundation for a research agenda on delegation-calibrated AI governance across finance, healthcare and manufacturing.
The framework offers managers actionable guidance for deploying agentic AI responsibly and offers regulators a structured basis for balancing innovation with oversight, while extending agency theory and sociotechnical systems theory through a reconceptualisation of agentic AI as a sociotechnical principal-cum-agent.
Mohammad Talha Siddiqui, Usuf Kamal· BIMTECH Business Perspective...· 0 citations
The paper contributes a decision-level theory of enterprise AI governance and provides managers with an auditable method for allocating rights, responsibilities, evidence, and lifecycle controls.
Fang Sun· ICCK Transactions on Systems...· 0 citations
This conceptual study analyzes the accountability gap that opens when strategic goals are delegated to algorithmic agents and develops the Dynamic Authority Delegation Model (DADM), which distributes responsibility among human strategic intent, algorithmic operational execution, and institutional oversight.
Mustafa Kaya· Kamu Yönetimi ve Teknoloji D...· 1 citation
The Agent Governance Framework (AGF), which integrates SC-based governance into agentic AI systems, enabling verifiable accountability through traceable autonomous decisions, is proposed and the results demonstrate 100% traceability across the E2E governance loop and a minimal latency overhead of 2–4% due to the Tracea...
J. Uriol, Emma O'Brien, Iker Hernández et al.· Applied Informatics· 0 citations
This study aims to argue that organizations systematically misclassify algorithmic delegation as a variant of conventional human delegation. This misclassification carries direct consequences for organizational risk, legal exposure and decision quality. The paper aims to propose a framework for legitimate delegated...
Current AI governance strategies and guardrails ensure that AI systems adhere to the ethical principles, legal requirements, and safety standards. However, they create organisational rigidity which could potentially delay new deployments, fail to capture tacit qualitative information, are sometimes unable to enforce th...
M. Nkwo, M. Adamu, Francis Brako et al.· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.