You can also access this resource, and many others, in Issue 365 of my Talent Edge Weekly newsletter.
One of the reasons I value frameworks, and spend time developing many of my own, is that they help organize and simplify complex topics. That simplification is critical because it builds shared understanding, fosters better discussion, and enables more informed and faster decision-making. One topic where frameworks can be particularly helpful is how organizations redesign work around AI, including decision rights: Where should AI have authority to decide or act? Where should humans remain involved? Who ultimately owns the outcome? These were among the questions that surfaced in a recent discussion in my private community for HR practitioners, Talent Edge Circle, on AI and organization design. Against this backdrop, I am sharing an MIT CISR framework for determining how humans and autonomous AI should participate in decisions based on two factors: ambiguity and risk. Ambiguity reflects how clearly the available information points to an answer, while risk reflects the consequences of being wrong. The result is a 2×2 framework with four types of decisions (routine, consequential, exploratory, and strategic), helping clarify the appropriate role for AI, where human judgment is most important, and who remains accountable. For HR, the opportunity is twofold: help the organization work through these decision-rights questions, while also applying the same discipline within HR itself.
