Glossary
The shared language used throughout the AIDIVE Framework.
665 terms · Version 1.0
- “Why This AI, Why Now” NarrativeAR-A18
Create a credible initiative narrative that explains the problem, timing, outcome, uncertainty, trade-offs and non-goals without hype.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- “Why This AI, Why Now” NarrativeAIDIVE Alignment - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
alignment
- “Why This AI, Why Now” Narratives
One of the most powerful alignment tools in AI Transformation is a clear and compelling “why” narrative. People are rarely resistant to AI itself; what they resist is uncertainty. When questions like “Why this AI?”, “Why now?”, or “Why are we investing here?” remain unanswered, the gaps are quickly filled with assumptions, anxiety, and unrealistic expectations.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- A.6 Alignment Communication & Change ManagementAIDIVE Alignment Dimension Version-1.docx
alignment
- 90-Day Integration Improvement RoadmapAR-I18
Convert Integration findings and current-to-target capability gaps into a sequenced, owned 90-day roadmap of usable operating improvements and evidence-producing decisions.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 90-Day Integration Improvement RoadmapAIDIVE Integration - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
integration
- 90-day mobilisation plan
Creates bounded experiments, decision gates and measurable progress before large-scale process expansion.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- From evidence to transformation decisionAIDIVE Ethics Dimension Version-1.docx
ethics
- Accessibility
Accessibility means that authorised consumers, whether people, applications or agents, can discover and use information with reasonable effort. Discovery works differently for each: a person can ask a colleague, whereas an agent can only use what is described in a form it can read. It is different from availability, which describes whether information can be obtained at all, and from access control, which determines who may use it. Interoperability means that information can move across systems without losing meaning, identity or essential constraints.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- D.2 Data Quality, Accessibility & Operational ReadinessAIDIVE Data Dimension Version-1.docx
data
- Accessibility and Interoperability AssessmentAR-D05
Determine whether authorised human and machine consumers can obtain and interpret required information with acceptable effort.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Accessibility and Interoperability AssessmentAIDIVE Data - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
data
- Accessibility, Interoperability and Cross-System Connectivity
Accessibility means that authorised consumers, whether people, applications or agents, can discover and use information with reasonable effort. Discovery works differently for each: a person can ask a colleague, whereas an agent can only use what is described in a form it can read. It is different from availability, which describes whether information can be obtained at all, and from access control, which determines who may use it. Interoperability means that information can move across systems without losing meaning, identity or essential constraints.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- D.2 Data Quality, Accessibility & Operational ReadinessAIDIVE Data Dimension Version-1.docx
data
- Accountability
Accountability connects business authority to measurable obligations. Owners decide meaning, acceptable use, quality tolerance and investment priority. Stewards coordinate definitions and remediation. Custodians operate storage, access and protection. Product or service owners ensure that information delivered to consumers remains useful and supported. Producers remain answerable for what they create at source, and consumers, including AI services and agents, are accountable for using assets within their stated limits. Where an agent operates outside those limits, accountability rests with the team that deployed it, not with the source that supplied the data.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- D.3 Data Accountability, Privacy & ProtectionAIDIVE Data Dimension Version-1.docx
data
- Accountability and control blueprint
Defines decision rights, lifecycle obligations, contextual access and exception handling.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Dimension Synthesis and Transformation RoadmapAIDIVE Data Dimension Version-1.docx
data
- Accountability and Decision Rights DesignAR-D07
Clarify who decides, who advises, who executes and who provides independent challenge for critical data-use decisions.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Accountability and Decision Rights DesignAIDIVE Data - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
data
- Accuracy, Completeness, Consistency and Validity
Quality rules should be derived from business decisions and failure modes. Accuracy asks whether information reflects reality; completeness asks whether required elements are present; consistency tests whether representations agree across contexts; and validity checks conformance to defined rules. The relevant thresholds vary by use case, risk and reversibility. These four dimensions assume structured records. Content in document and conversational form requires a different set of tests, which are addressed in D.2.2.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- D.2 Data Quality, Accessibility & Operational ReadinessAIDIVE Data Dimension Version-1.docx
data
- Actual model usage cost
Actual model usage cost is calculated from provider- and model-specific usage records and applicable billing rules. In token-priced services, the calculation commonly separates billable input, cached input where applicable, and output because these may be priced differently. The calculation also includes usage created by system prompts, tool schemas, orchestration, retries and discarded responses. Forecasts may use a model-specific token counter, but actual reporting reconciles API usage, billing exports and workflow telemetry.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- I.3 AI Economics & Business Case LogicAIDIVE Impact Dimension Version-1.docx
impact
- Adaptation & Re-Prioritization Triggers
Triggers translate evidence into action. They define conditions for continuing, investigating, mitigating, pivoting, pausing, scaling or retiring an initiative. Trigger design combines target outcomes, guardrail breaches, cost variance, adoption, evidence confidence and changes in strategic relevance.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- I.4 Measurement, Attribution & Decision Feedback LoopsAIDIVE Impact Dimension Version-1.docx
impact
- Adoption friction
Adoption friction is often the employee-side expression of poorly redesigned roles, increased cognitive burden, weak trust foundations, and unclear performance logic. A major risk is to interpret all resistance as an employee attitude problem and never question the system design. Another is to evaluate early adoption only through usage rates while ignoring depth, trust, quality, or sustainability. In such cases, the organisation may believe AI use is increasing while a superficial, fragile, and obligation-driven adoption model is actually taking shape. A mature operating pattern is evident when the organisation learns from friction instead of suppressing it. Progress is evident when resistance signals are identified earlier, diagnosed more accurately, and used to improve the adoption approach itself.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- V.4 Employee Experience & Human–AI CollaborationAIDIVE Values Dimension Version-1.docx
values
- Agent and tool registry
Auto-register owner, purpose, current risk classification, AI authority mode, human-control mode, delegated-authority envelope, version, model, endpoints, tools, data scope, delegation rights, expiry, cost limits and lifecycle state.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.5 Agentic Networks LayerAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agent Autonomy and Delegated-Authority DesignAR-E19
Within the approved Autonomy Appetite and decision authority, define an agent’s permitted actions as an explicit, time- and scope-bounded authority envelope that remains attributable to an accountable human or service owner.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Agent Autonomy and Delegated-Authority DesignAIDIVE Ethics - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
ethics
- Agent Data and Tool ContractAR-D13
Expose enterprise data and actions to agents through bounded, interpretable and auditable business-capability interfaces.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Agent Data and Tool ContractAIDIVE Data - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
data
- Agent evaluation, observability, safe failure and termination
Agent evaluation must test policy compliance, action quality, recovery and refusal alongside task success. Observability, safe failure and termination show whether control still holds when the system behaves unexpectedly. Evaluate task success together with policy compliance, tool-selection quality, action correctness, recovery, refusal, escalation and harm. Include messy inputs, missing context, malicious instructions, dependency failure and long-horizon tasks.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- E.5 Agentic-AI Autonomy, Identity and Human ControlAIDIVE Ethics Dimension Version-1.docx
ethics
- Agent identity
Agent identity makes delegated action attributable. Least privilege then limits that identity to the tools, data and operations required for the approved purpose and period.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- E.5 Agentic-AI Autonomy, Identity and Human ControlAIDIVE Ethics Dimension Version-1.docx
ethics
- Agent identity, credentials and least privilege
Agent identity makes delegated action attributable. Least privilege then limits that identity to the tools, data and operations required for the approved purpose and period. Give each material agent or agent class an attributable non-human identity and avoid invisible sharing of human credentials. Bind actions to both the agent identity and the authorizing user, workflow or service where appropriate.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- E.5 Agentic-AI Autonomy, Identity and Human ControlAIDIVE Ethics Dimension Version-1.docx
ethics
- Agent Identity, Permission and Tool-Boundary ControlAR-E20
Give agents attributable identity and least-privilege, action-aware access to tools, data and destinations.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- Agent Identity, Permission and Tool-Boundary ControlAIDIVE Ethics - Practices & Playbook Version-1.docx
ethics
- Agent supervision
Effective delegation, monitoring, quality control and intervention within formal boundaries defined by Alignment and the Agentic Operating Model, demonstrated in realistic and live work.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- V.1 AI Literacy & Shared UnderstandingAIDIVE Values Dimension Version-1.docx
- V.4 Employee Experience & Human–AI CollaborationAIDIVE Values Dimension Version-1.docx
values
- Agent-to-Agent Delegation and Multi-Agent Handoff
Agent-to-agent delegation introduces another form of operational handoff. One agent may decompose a request and delegate parts of it, another may retrieve or interpret information, and another may execute a business action. The same handoff principles established in I.1 still apply, but the chain adds further requirements for identity, authority, task continuity and evidence across each transition. Architecture & Rhythm defines how multi-agent coordination should be designed; Integration examines whether the resulting chain remains bounded, attributable and reconstructable in operation.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- I.2 AI Participation, Autonomy and ControlsAIDIVE Integration Dimension Version-1.docx
integration
- Agent2AgentA2A
An interoperability standard for agent-to-agent communication. AIDIVE does not prescribe a protocol; identity, task continuity, authorization, context, lifecycle and evidence commitments remain explicit regardless of transport.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.7 End-to-End Agentic Execution ArchitectureAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agentic AI Operating ModelAOM
The Agentic AI Operating Model is the execution architecture through which approved enterprise intent and all six AIDIVE dimensions are enacted across five operating layers. Alignment defines strategic intent, decision rights, portfolio policy, Autonomy Appetite and feedback contracts; this document defines how those choices are operated through layers, roles, cadences, value streams, workflows and controls.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2. Agentic AI Operating ModelAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
- 2.1 How the Operating Model WorksAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
- 1.4. 360° Integration Across the AIDIVE SystemAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Maturity Version-1.docx
agentic operating model · maturity journey
- Agentic Networks Dependency Conversation
Purpose: To identify dependencies and bottlenecks between multiple Agentic Networks to resolve these using workflow design principles rather than ticket management. Cadence / trigger: Biweekly Core participants: •Cross-Agentic Networks Coordination Lead•Value Stream Owner / Cluster Owner•Value Stream Architecture / Flow Design Lead Additional participants: •Experience / Journey Lead•Data / Knowledge Representative•Selected Agentic Networks representatives•Platform representative Evidence inputs: • Dependency maps • Integration and context-transfer issues • Release synchronization needs • Shared capability / platform dependencies • Flow anomalies • Interface or contract failures Expected output / decision: • Dependency resolution decisions • Interface, context-transfer or contract changes with named owners • Synchronization decisions • Handoff improvement actions • Unresolved dependencies routed to the appropriate authority
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.4 Value Stream LayerAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agentic Networks Layer
The Agentic Networks Layer synchronises multiple teams, agents and shared capabilities so they operate as one delivery engine around a common value stream. It is a coordination shell rather than a managerial hierarchy, and it keeps integration, assurance, experience, policy and runtime evidence coherent across teams.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.5 Agentic Networks LayerAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agentic Networks Lead
Coordinates multiple team types, shared AI capabilities and human-AI workflows so they operate as one delivery engine within the value stream. Maintains synchronization and escalation paths within approved boundaries and does not acquire business decision authority merely by coordinating the network.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.5 Agentic Networks LayerAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agentic Orchestration
A critical threshold in agentic value-stream design is the ability to connect individual AI capabilities to the end-to-end flow of work. When multiple AI capabilities participate in the same end-to-end work, their system-level value and reliability depend on coherent coordination toward a shared operating objective, with the required context, authority boundaries and outcome evidence preserved across the flow.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.7 End-to-End Agentic Execution ArchitectureAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model
- Agentic Value Streams
Value streams have always been central to understanding how organizations create value. They reveal how customer needs move through the enterprise, how work travels across teams and systems, where decisions are made, and where delays accumulate. In traditional operating models, value streams were primarily understood as human-centered flows: people interpreted signals, made decisions, transferred work, resolved exceptions, and corrected errors through meetings, escalations, dashboards, and experience-based judgment.
Source in the framework · 1.0
- 2.7 End-to-End Agentic Execution ArchitectureAIDIVE Architecture & Rhythm - Agentic AI Operating Model Version-1.docx
agentic operating model