When agents decide autonomously – how CIOs anchor responsibility for AI in SAP landscapes in the organizational structure

Executive whitepaper by Marc Hofheinz, who has worked in SAP logistics projects for almost 30 years – the third and final part of our series on AI in SAP logistics landscapes.

The technology for autonomous agents is coming. The decisive question is not whether agents can decide autonomously, but what a company must have regulated before it lets them: Who defines what an agent is allowed to do? Who can stop it? Who answers for its decision the next morning?

This whitepaper does not describe a technology and does not replace legal advice. It presents a governance structure that enables companies to grant autonomy in SAP EWM and SAP MFS responsibly – the EU AI Act is the outer framework here, not the main subject.

Download the whitepaper for free

Whitepaper features

Executive perspective for CIOs and those responsible for SAP logistics

Four core theses: Autonomy is a permission, not a feature

Governance per decision class instead of per agent

Chain of responsibility with four staffed roles: business owner, technical owner, approval authority, operational oversight

The EU AI Act as the outer framework – with citations and a clear separation between the wording of the law and our assessment

Two case examples from SAP EWM and SAP MFS

Four recommendations for CIOs

The gap between adoption and structure

In a Deloitte survey, roughly one in five companies (21 percent) said they have a mature governance model for autonomous agents – yet 74 percent expect to use agentic AI at least to a moderate extent within two years.

No law closes the gap between these two figures. Only your own organization can. The whitepaper shows how.

Autonomy is not switched on. It is granted.
Portrait of Marc Hofheinz

Marc Hofheinz

Managing Partner | Qinlox Consulting GmbH

Three key findings

Autonomy is granted

Whether an agent acts without individual approval is not decided by the software. It is decided by the company.

Responsibility needs a name

Responsibility that lies “with the system” or “with the project” lies with no one.

The deadline is build time

The rules for high-risk systems apply from December 2027. The structure is needed for the first autonomous class well before then.

Futuristic warehouse with digitally connected racks and conveyor technology
Employee monitoring automated warehouse systems on screens in a control room

Who in your company may grant autonomy – and who answers for it the next morning?

The whitepaper shows how companies anchor responsibility for AI agents in SAP landscapes so that autonomy can be granted in the first place: per decision class, with named individuals and a formal level change.