Agentic Workflows and AI Transformation Strategies

Mohamed A. Haggag

Founder and Chief AI Architect, Agentis Labs

Personal Snapshot

Academic & Research Experience

Three academic degrees: B.Sc. Electrical Engineering, MSc. Mechatronics (Professional), MSc. Computer Science
Four universities across three countries: Egypt (2), Japan (1), US (1)
Multi-disciplinary research & global academic experience

Professional Experience

R&D, product, and executive technical leadership roles in AI across Robotics, Autonomous Driving, Blockchain.
AI consulting, advising, and strategy across various industries, including Drug Discovery, Real Estate, Customer Acquisition, and more.
Advising government on National AI Strategy

What We Will Cover

What is Agentic AI?
What is the right approach for building agentic systems?
Where should we look for the next wave of impactful AI applications?
How to approach organization-wide AI transformation?

Part I

Agents and Agentic Workflows

AI Agents

Agents are not new as a concept
Definition: An agent is a system capable of receiving input, planning and/or executing actions that align with desired goals.
Agents exist on a spectrum, from simple reflex agents to autonomous rational agents
LLMs are not agents
However, they are powerful components for building them.

Agentic Workflows

Complex agents are essentially workflows
- Non-linear, dynamic, and/or stateful, with intrinsic capabilities for planning and decision-making
An agentic workflow is one that incorporates one or more agents.
- Essentially, are a workflow of workflows
Agentic workflows necessitate shifting focus to architecture rather than components; an Architecture-First approach.

The two approaches to Agentic AI

LLM-First

Build around the model
Limited by model capabilities
Premature framework commitment
Abstractions not yet settled
Gets stuck with non-optimal abstractions

Architecture-First

Build around the problem
Combine LLMs, Symbolic AI, and Agentic Systems
Discover abstractions organically
Intelligence emerges from architecture
Enables breakthrough patterns

What is the next AI frontier

Conversational Interfaces

Conversational interfaces to knowledge or data sources
Relatively well-understood
Easy to demo and implement
Valuable use case

Agentic Workflows

AI-enabled/enhanced/augmented workflows and processes
Underserved and complex
Where most value is generated
100x value compared to conversational interfaces

Why Agentic Workflows are difficult

Requires deep domain expertise to identify real bottlenecks in industry processes, pain points, and workflows.
Requires ongoing R&D, since agentic AI at scale lacks standardized abstractions and methodologies.
Requires holistic understanding of the entire AI spectrum, not just one technology, to grasp capabilities, limitations, and architectural challenges.
Requires strong software engineering to build robust, scalable, production-grade systems.

Part II

AI Transformation Framework

AI Transformation: 3-Phase Framework

Phase 1: Organization-Level Mapping
- Map all functions and processes, identify high-impact opportunities, prioritize by ROI.
Phase 2: Deep workflow analysis
- Systematically analyze priority workflows, document each step, identify AI integration points.
Phase 3: Deploy, train, & monitor
- Deploy AI solutions, train staff on new workflows, and continuously monitor performance against defined metrics.

Phase 1: Organization-Level Mapping

Objectives:

Map all functions, groups, and their core processes
Find redundancies, gaps, and improvement opportunities
Prioritize by: AI potential × Business impact × Ease of implementation

Activities:

List all functions across all departments
Group processes by complexity and AI readiness
Optimize: merge, remove, or improve functions

Key Deliverable: Process map with prioritized AI opportunities

Phase 2: Process/Workflow-Level Analysis

Objectives:

Document step-by-step workflows for priority processes
Find where AI can help at each step
Design new AI-enhanced workflows with clear ROI

Activities:

Document current workflows (as-is)
Interview stakeholders (roles, problems, data sources)
Analyze AI applicability for each step
Design future workflows with AI integration

Key Deliverable: Detailed workflow documentation with AI integration specifications and ROI projections

Phase 2: Process/Workflow-level Analysis

Phase 3: Implementation, Evaluation & Training

Objectives:

Build/integrate AI systems
Train staff and track adoption
Measure results and continuously improve

Activities:

Digitalize data and create pipelines
Select tools or build custom solutions
Pilot with target teams
Train staff and manage change
Monitor performance and optimize

Key Deliverable: Deployed AI systems with performance metrics and scaling playbook

Framework in Action - Example

(1) Organization-Level Mapping

Map all Legal & Fair Trade Group functions and their processes
Assess each process: manpower required, business impact, AI potential
Result: "Shareholder Meeting Q&A Preparation" identified as top priority (high manpower, high impact, good AI feasibility)

(2) Workflow-Level Analysis

Document current workflow: Review past questions → Research financial data → Draft answers → Legal review → Executive approval
Identify AI integration points:
- Steps 1-2: AI categorizes questions, retrieves relevant data
- Step 3: AI generates draft answers from data and past responses
- Step 4: AI flags legal/compliance issues
- Step 5: Human review and final approval
Output: Redesigned workflow with AI handling research/drafting, humans focus on strategic review

(3) Implementation

Build: Connect AI to financial database and historical Q&A records
Train: Legal team validates AI outputs and refines process
Monitor: Track accuracy, time saved, user satisfaction
Result: Reduced prep time, staff redeployed to higher-value work

Part III

The Agentic Leap for Nippon Paint

The Path Forward

Apply the 3-Phase Framework end-to-end to achieve a disciplined, holistic approach where architectural gaps are discovered, a unified roadmap is set, and high-level objectives are made clear.
Follow an incremental approach: scope Phase 1 around the candidate processes identified by the Technology Shared Service CoE team, rather than mapping the entire organization at once.
These candidates serve a dual role: they define which functions to map first in Phase 1, and they become the prioritized processes for Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Candidate Processes

RM Procurement

AI-powered decision support for purchase timing, volume optimization, and supplier selection

Facility Planning

Data-driven site consolidation, capacity planning, and space utilization optimization

R&D / ELN Integration

AI-enabled R&D with structured data capture, RM selection, and formulation optimization

Portfolio Management

Systematic R&D project prioritization, stage-gate support, and decision tracking

A Unique Challenge

The Asset Assembler growth model has driven rapid expansion through M&A, creating fragmented systems, siloed processes, and localized AI efforts across group companies.
There is a clear need for standardization, but full centralization contradicts the spirit of autonomous partner companies.
The challenge is enabling coherence without forcing uniformity, which is exactly what the architecture-first, end-to-end approach is designed to solve.

Two Models for Implementation

Federated

3-Phase Framework applied independently at each company
Common discoveries and patterns shared to reduce duplicate effort
Each company retains full autonomy over implementation
Like franchises sharing best practices

Tiered

Framework applied at group level for strategic goals and common functions
Local implementation for company-specific functions
Central policy with tactical flexibility at the company level
Like a national AI strategy: central direction, ministry-level execution

Discussion & Next Steps

Scope Phase 1: Define the initial set of functions and companies to cover, starting with Japan Group, scoped to the candidate processes identified.
Estimate duration: Based on agreed scope, determine the timeline for Phase 1 and subsequent phases.
Engagement structure: Determine the optimal engagement model based on scope and organizational needs.
Finalize proposal: With scope, timeline, and structure defined, prepare the formal engagement proposal.