Talk to UsResponsible AI resourceMenuHomeModel policyDecisionsResearch & approachGet support
Leadership guide/Decisions/Governance & institutional authority
A task force needs a clear mandate and a route to decisions the institution can implement.
HumanSkills recommendation · September 2026
In this guideRecommended positionYour local choicesA campus situationWho is responsibleLanguage to useEvidence of implementationSupporting sourcesDownload PDF→
Read, share and use with your team.
HumanSkills recommendationSpecify decision rights before assigning tasks. Distinguish board oversight, executive accountability, academic authority, specialist review and operational ownership. Give the task force a defined scope, deliverables, escalation route and completion or transition point.
A committee can become responsible for a subject while lacking the power to resolve it. Conversely, an enthusiastic unit can bypass academic, privacy or procurement authority. Governance works when people know both their responsibility and the limits of their authority.
What the evidence supportsPurdue assigns responsibilities across IT, a Data Ethics Committee and units. RPCC specifies an officer, committee and system connections. These structures illustrate different ways to make responsibility explicit.
The right arrangement depends on the purpose, consequences, applicable requirements and capacity of your institution. Use these options to make the choice explicit.
Central coordination
Consider this when: The institution needs consistent safeguards and shared review capacity.
The tradeoff: Keep academic and operational expertise involved and avoid an unmanageable approval queue.
Distributed decisions within common rules
Consider this when: Units have the expertise and capacity to apply institutional safeguards.
The tradeoff: Require visibility, consistent escalation and an accountable institutional owner.
System or shared-service arrangements
Consider this when: Authority, infrastructure or expertise sits across a district or system.
The tradeoff: Make the boundary between local and system decisions explicit, including incident and exception handling.
The group has drafted classroom guidance and a vendor-review process. Members disagree about whether they can approve either.
The work needs an authority map before another round of drafting.
What the team produces: A task-force mandate and decision-rights map.
Board & trustees
Confirm oversight expectations and receive assurance through the institution’s governance structure.
Institutional leaders
Own the mandate, resources, decision route and implementation accountability.
AI task force
Prepare recommendations and evidence within its delegated authority; escalate unresolved decisions.
Apply these roles within your institution’s actual governance and delegated authority.
Illustrative model clause
The institution must assign an accountable executive for AI governance and define approval responsibilities across academic, operational and specialist functions. Advisory groups must operate under a documented mandate. Delegation must identify its scope, limits, reporting requirements and escalation route.
Copy the clause
Review this clause with the full policy and local requirements. It is an implementation starting point, not a statement of measured consensus.
Model policy §3→Model policy §4→Model policy §12→
When to reconsiderRevisit when the task force becomes a standing function, delegated authority changes or decisions repeatedly stall.
Selected precedents and guidance supporting this chapter. These sources do not imply institutional endorsement of HumanSkills or agreement with every recommendation.
Source review: 24 September 2026. Read the editorial approach.
Continue the workBuild the capability to use the permission.
→
Read the research comparisons and explore the annotated library across US colleges, universities and international institutions. Use the model language as a starting point for your own decision.