Agentic Design Team
A pair who design the agentic systems, and the infrastructure to run them at scale.
30 days' notice either way
Monthly, cancellable on 30 days' written notice either way. It ends on the sequenced build plan, which you can execute with us, yourselves or a third party.
£70k–£220k across 2–4 months
Derived from the published rate card, so you can check the arithmetic.
Two senior practitioners, an operating-model lead holding the interim Head of AI seat and an agentic architect.
No build engineer: this rung designs what gets built rather than building it. Both practitioners are at the published senior rate of £1,250 a day, and the architect signs the architecture off with your CTO.
James Rooney provides partner oversight on every engagement, and leads the audits personally. The people on your engagement are not substituted without your written agreement. Access, data handling and screening are set out on our security page.
An Agentic Design Team is a pair of senior Tenhaw practitioners (one operating-model lead, one agentic architect) who design the agentic systems and the supporting infrastructure an organisation needs to run them at scale. They define what humans own and what agents own, the governance and audit trail around agent decisions, and the platform, data and security foundations the build depends on. It runs at £35,000–£55,000 per month, typically over two to four months.
What you get
In scope for the £35k–£55k monthly fee.
- Target operating model for an AI-native organisation, with roles defined by the decisions they own
- Agentic system and infrastructure architecture: platform, data foundations, integration and security
- Governance framework making agent decisions auditable rather than theoretical
- Accountability mapped across the model before a single agent is deployed
- Human-in-the-loop boundaries defined per decision class, with escalation paths
- A sequenced build plan your teams, ours, or a third party could execute
How the engagement runs, week by week
2–4 months, drawn to scale so you can see how long each part actually takes.
- 01Weeks 1–3
Current-state truth. How decisions actually get made, what the data and platform will support, and where the structure will fight the technology.
- 02Weeks 4–8
Design in parallel. Operating model and technical architecture developed together, because a target model the infrastructure cannot support is a document, not a design.
- 03Weeks 9–12
Governance and assurance. Audit trails, escalation paths, model risk, and the human-in-the-loop points your risk function and your regulator will both ask about.
- 04Final weeks
Sequencing and handover. The build plan, the adoption plan, and named internal ownership for every element.
- Weeks 1–3
Current-state truth. How decisions actually get made, what the data and platform will support, and where the structure will fight the technology.
- Weeks 4–8
Design in parallel. Operating model and technical architecture developed together, because a target model the infrastructure cannot support is a document, not a design.
- Weeks 9–12
Governance and assurance. Audit trails, escalation paths, model risk, and the human-in-the-loop points your risk function and your regulator will both ask about.
- Final weeks
Sequencing and handover. The build plan, the adoption plan, and named internal ownership for every element.
Is this the right rung for you?
We would rather tell you now than three weeks in.
Right for you if
- Organisations whose pilots worked and cannot scale past the team that built them
- Businesses that need the operating model and the technical architecture designed together
- Groups where several functions are about to build incompatible things
- Leadership teams facing role redesign, governance and platform decisions at once
Not right if
- Single-team pilots: this is organisation-level design
- Organisations that have not yet established where agents create value
- Anyone wanting architecture without operating-model work, or the reverse; separating them is why programmes stall
Prefer to talk it through? Ask us on a discovery call →
An operating model your executives can each see their own role inside.
£35k–£55k / month·2–4 months·Rung 03
- An architecture your CTO signs off rather than inherits
- A governance framework that survives contact with audit and risk
- A build plan executable by us, by you, or by a third party
Agentic Design Team: your questions
What is an AI-native operating model?
An organisational design in which AI agents perform a meaningful share of the work, and the structure, roles, decision rights and governance are rebuilt around that fact rather than bolted onto the existing hierarchy. It specifies what humans own, what agents own, how agent decisions are audited, and who is accountable when an agent gets something wrong.
Why design the operating model and the infrastructure together?
Because a target operating model the platform cannot support is a document rather than a design, and an architecture built without knowing which decisions move to agents optimises for the wrong things. Separating the two is one of the most reliable ways to produce a programme that stalls at the point of scaling.
Do you provide an interim Head of AI?
Yes, with one caveat about scope. The job most organisations advertise as Head of AI splits in two: designing how the organisation works around agents, and running the delivery. This rung supplies the first, as an operating-model lead alongside an agentic architect, for two to four months. If what you need is the delivery half, that is programme and delivery management at £18,000 to £35,000 a month, or the Agentic Build Team if the thing also has to be built. Either way it is an engagement rather than an appointment, and writing the specification you recruit against is part of the work.
Why a team of two rather than one?
The two disciplines are different. Operating-model design is about decision rights, accountability and adoption; agentic architecture is about platform, data, integration and security. One person covering both does one of them badly. Two senior practitioners is the smallest team for the work.
How do you decide what humans own versus what agents own?
By the consequence and reversibility of the decision, not by task complexity. Agents take decisions that are high-volume, observable and cheaply reversible. Humans retain decisions that are consequential, contested, or hard to undo. The boundary is written down explicitly per role, and the escalation path across it is part of the governance framework.
The other rungs
Each one ends in a decision rather than a dependency. If another fits better, we will say so.
Agent-Readiness Audit
Where agents add value, where they don't, and what to do first.
Fixed price · £30k–£90k6–8 weeks02Agentic Proof of Concept
Pick the workflow. Two to four weeks later, look at a working thing.
Fixed price · £20k–£55k2–4 weeks04Agentic Build Team
A team of three who build and ship it, under partner oversight.
£70k–£85k / month6–12 months05Programme & Delivery Management
We will govern the programme whether or not we are building any of it.
£18k–£35k / monthProgramme durationTalk it through before you commit.
Thirty minutes with James. We will tell you honestly whether Agentic Design Team is the right rung for where you are, and you will leave with a rough scope whether you engage us or not.
Can't see the calendar? Open it in a new tab.
What this engagement is called elsewhere
Two seats, held for two to four months. Between them they cover the half of a Head of AI job that is about how the organisation works, and the half that is about what it runs on.
Interim Head of AI
Also advertised as: Head of AI, AI transformation director, interim Chief AI Officer
The operating-model lead holds the seat a Head of AI holds: what humans own, what agents own, who is accountable when an agent gets something wrong, and what governance has to exist before anything is deployed. Two to four months rather than a permanent appointment, and one of the outputs is the specification for the person you eventually hire into it.
Enterprise AI architect
Also advertised as: agentic architect, principal AI architect, AI platform lead
Owns the platform, data foundations, integration and security the build will depend on, and gets the architecture signed off with your CTO rather than handed to them. Paired with the operating-model lead deliberately: an architecture designed without knowing which decisions move to agents optimises for the wrong things.
Every role here is supplied as an engagement, not a permanent hire or a staffing agency placement. The person is someone James Rooney has already delivered alongside, screened to BS7858 standard before they touch your estate, contracted by Tenhaw under the same confidentiality and data-handling terms as an employee, and accountable to James Rooney as well as to you. They are not substituted without your written agreement. There is no introduction fee and no permanent-placement conversion clause, and notice is thirty days either way. If what you need is a permanent Head of AI on your own payroll, hire one; an interim holds the seat while you run that search, and writes the specification you recruit against.
How the associate pool is selected and screened is set out on our team page, and the day rates behind every figure here are on the rate card.