全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Toward Autonomous AI Organizations: The Hierarchical Agentic AI Governance Architecture (HAAGA)

DOI: 10.4236/ica.2026.174007, PP. 147-174

Keywords: Agentic AI, Autonomous AI Organizations, AI Governance, Decision Escalation, Procedural Bias, Organizational Governance, Organizational Memory, Information Systems

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

As agentic artificial intelligence evolves from task-oriented automation to persistent organizational participation, existing multi-agent frameworks offer limited guidance on enterprise governance, institutional continuity, and accountability. This conceptual paper proposes the Hierarchical Agentic AI Governance Architecture (HAAGA), which organizes an Autonomous AI Organization across Governance, Administration, Operations, and Organizational Memory. An Autonomous AI Organization is distinguished from a persistent multi-agent system by an enduring mission and identity; durable departments, roles, and decision rights; formal escalation and final adjudication; institutional governance; controlled organizational memory; continuity across agent replacement; and auditable accountability. Decisions remain at the lowest level, with formally assigned authority and validated competence, while unresolved disagreements, insufficient authority, or requests for guidance trigger escalation from local to supervisory and executive levels. The Board of AI Governors and Executive AI are organizational roles that may be implemented by autonomous agents, human officials, or hybrid arrangements; the sponsoring legal organization and a designated human officer retain accountability for consequential decisions. HAAGA preserves departmental recommendations, evidence, reasoning, objections, and revisions in a controlled, versioned decision record that informs future cases. Preserved dissent improves reviewability but does not by itself create independent perspectives when departments share models, data, tools, or policy constraints. HAAGA therefore offers a theory-informed organizational specification whose effectiveness, scalability, and bias-mitigation properties require prototype implementation and empirical evaluation.

References

[1]  Bommasani, R., et al. (2021) On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. arXiv: 2108.07258.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258
[2]  Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., et al. (2024) A Survey on Large Language Model Based Autonomous Agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18, Article No. 186345.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1
[3]  Zhang, M., Yang, Y., Xie, R., Dhingra, B., Zhou, S. and Pei, J. (2026) Generalizability of Large Language Model-Based Agents: A Comprehensive Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 58, 1-44.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3794858
[4]  Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994) The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26, 87-119.
https://doi.org/10.1145/174666.174668
[5]  Weill, P. and Ross, J.W. (2004) IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. Harvard Business School Press.
https://store.hbr.org/product/it-governance-how-top-performers-manage-it-decision-rights-for-superior-results/2535
[6]  Brown, A.E. and Grant, G.G. (2005) Framing the Frameworks: A Review of IT Governance Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 696-712.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01538
[7]  Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2021) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th Edition, Pearson.
https://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/
[8]  Wooldridge, M. (2009) An Introduction to Multi Agent Systems. 2nd Edition, Wiley.
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/An+Introduction+to+MultiAgent+Systems%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470519462
[9]  Scott, W.R. and Davis, G.F. (2015) Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. 2nd Edition, Routledge.
[10]  Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall.
[11]  Fayol, H. (1949) General and Industrial Management (Storrs, C. Trans). Pitman Publishing. (Original Work Published 1916).
[12]  Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
[13]  DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
[14]  Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991) Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 57-91.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258607
[15]  Nonaka, I. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
[16]  Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
[17]  CrewAI (2026) CrewAI Documentation.
https://docs.crewai.com/
[18]  Fourney, A., et al. (2024) Magentic-One: A Generalist Multi-Agent System for Solving Complex Tasks. arXiv: 2411.04468.
[19]  LangChain (2026) LangGraph Overview.
https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/langgraph/overview
[20]  Li, G., et al. (2023) CAMEL: Communicative Agents for ‘Mind’ Exploration of Large Language Model Society.
https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/a3621ee907def47c1b952ade25c67698-Abstract-Conference.html
[21]  Wu, Q., et al. (2024) AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversations. Proceedings of the First Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2024), Philadelphia, 7-9 October 2024, 1-46.
https://openreview.net/pdf/db83d7ffc58f8ea86ddd2bcc9314d43c2bdaa911.pdf
[22]  Calboreanu, E. (2026) LATTICE: A Governance-First Architecture for Authorized Autonomous AI Operations. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 9, Article 1800407.
https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1800407

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133