Governing a multi-team agentic AI programme
Govern AI work across internal teams and suppliers with shared evidence, accountable decisions, honest forecasts and benefits tracked in currency.
Govern a multi-team agentic programme through one inventory, named decision owners and shared review gates, and bring risk and compliance in during design rather than at the end. Report supplier performance without commercial filtering. Tenhaw’s Programme and Delivery Management (£18,000–£35,000 a month) does this across internal teams and other suppliers. This is not legal advice.
30 minutes with James · how this would work in your organisation
The basis for this approach
This is our programme-governance approach, based on the published independent management engagement and AI governance method. This is delivery guidance, not legal advice. Your legal owner determines the duties and classification for each system.
The demand signal
Tenhaw’s published monthly board pack puts each supplier’s committed and completed work into the same report, including Tenhaw’s own workstreams. Where Tenhaw holds both governance and build roles, that is made explicit to the board.
Bring the reason this is on your agenda to a 30-minute call with James, and we can explore what it would take in your organisation.
Book a 30-minute callWhy it stalls
2 failure modes we keep meeting
Each team reports a different version of progress
A steering group cannot compare suppliers if each defines completion and risk differently. Use one reporting standard with the underlying delivery evidence and unresolved dependencies visible.
A shared risk has no decision owner
An item shared by several suppliers still needs a named person with authority to resolve it. Record the escalation state and what changed since the last review.
If one of these sounds familiar, bring it to a 30-minute call with James and we can explore a way past it.
Book a 30-minute callHow we approach it
3 moves, in order
- 01
Establish the delivery picture
Count what is in flight, the systems involved, supplier commitments and dependencies. Compare that with what the board currently believes and name the decisions needed.
- 02
Agree review gates during design
Bring risk and compliance into the workflow design. Record who owns the decision, the evidence required and the human-review boundary, with legal interpretation handled by counsel. This is not legal advice.
- 03
Report to one standard
Use throughput-based forecast intervals, supplier-by-supplier results, risks with owners and benefits in currency. Tenhaw’s engagement is £18,000–£35,000 a month and can govern work delivered entirely by other suppliers.
Compare that with what the board currently believes and name the decisions needed.
Prefer to talk it through? Ask us on a discovery call →
Sources
Every source below was opened and read before it was attached. Where nothing survived that check, the claim on this page was softened rather than given a plausible-looking link.
Tenhaw, Programme & Delivery ManagementTenhaw, AI governance and regulatory evidenceThe closest guides to this one
Nearest first, then the rest. Each one carries the same label: written from delivery, or the method we would bring. All 34 are on the hub.
What should an AI governance framework include?
Keep the AI inventory, accountable decisions and evidence connected.
Our approachAI delivery lead: hire one or bring in a consultancy?
Choose permanent or interim AI delivery leadership around the work, timing and handover. See Tenhaw’s published £18,000–£35,000 monthly engagement.
Our approachWhat does an AI project manager do?
Understand an AI project manager’s responsibilities, forecasting method and relationship with engineers, suppliers and the business owner.
Our approachHow do we verify an AI agent beyond a vendor demo?
Give your release decision evidence the business can inspect.
Our approachAgent identity and access
Give each workflow the authority it needs, with a way to take it away.
Our approachHow to take an AI pilot into production in a regulated business
Build the evidence for a production decision.
Or bring the problem to a call instead of reading three more of these.
Book a 30-minute callWork out the next step for your team.
A 30-minute call with James Rooney to discuss your workflow, people and budget. Leave with a rough scope and a useful next step.
Programme & Delivery Management · £18k–£35k a month · 30 days’ written notice either way · excluding VAT
No time that suits? Email hello@tenhaw.com. Calendar not loading? Open it on cal.com.
Describe the work
Describe the work in a paragraph. James replies with a rough scope and budget range within two working days.
Questions this guide answers
Who owns decisions across teams?
A named accountable person with matching authority owns each class of decision. Identify cross-team dependencies and the escalation route instead of leaving ownership with a committee or a supplier list.
How do we govern suppliers we don’t control?
Agree the reporting and evidence standard with the sponsor, then report commitments, completed work, dependencies and risks consistently. Tenhaw’s published scope includes other suppliers and applies the same reporting to its own work.
What should the steering group see?
Forecast completion intervals from the programme’s throughput, supplier performance, risks and issues with named owners, and benefits tracked in currency against the agreed outcomes.
Where do review gates sit?
Define them during workflow and operating-model design, where the consequences of a decision can be assessed. Risk and compliance help define the evidence and approval boundary. This is not legal advice.
Can Tenhaw provide oversight without building?
Yes. Programme & Delivery Management is available independently at £18,000–£35,000 a month, with partner oversight and 30 days’ written notice either way. The engagement deliberately has no build engineer.