This course is about deciding what actions an AI agent is allowed to take at work, using recommendations from the IMDA Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI. A reader new to the topic should leave able to make one concrete decision, whether an agent can read, write, or execute in a system without asking a human first. Many teams treat agent permissions like a settings screen you can tidy up later. The hard part is that permission choices decide what the agent can do before anyone sees the first output. The mistake comes from carrying over habits from chat tools, where the system suggests text but does not act.
An agent shows up in setup and approval work, not only in day to day use. Someone connects it to tools like email, ticketing, or a vendor portal. Someone else approves those connections and the conditions around them. Those steps can look like normal integration work, but the decision is different because the agent can take actions, and those actions can be hard to undo once they run. That is why this course keeps returning to a simple distinction, a chatbot proposes and an agent does. Here is the shape of what the course covers:
Generate custom courses on any topic — with hands-on practice, AI guidance, and visuals built in.
Already have an account?
An AI agent is software that can plan steps and use connected tools to get a job done with limited back and forth. An assistant usually produces text for a person to copy, while an agent can carry out the change itself in another system. That difference matters because an executed action can outlive the chat that triggered it. You can delete a message, but you cannot always undo a sent email or a closed ticket.
Even when an action is reversible, reversal often costs time and trust. A ticket reopened after a customer replies still looks like someone dropped the thread. A vendor record corrected after an update still leaves a wrong value in someone’s export. Starting strong means treating permissions as the first design choice, not the last safety net.
Permission decisions belong to the people who configure and approve the agent, not to the person who happens to run it on a busy day. A user can choose when to start a task, but they cannot see every tool the agent can reach. A vendor can ship defaults, but they do not know which actions your organisation will accept. IT can provision access, but IT should not be the only place where the business decision gets made.
This course also treats accountability as personal and named. A named human owner is a specific person who is answerable for what the agent is allowed to do and how it is supervised. That ownership does not disappear because the agent is “internal” or because it runs as a service account. When an agent acts, someone should be able to say who approved that action space and under what conditions.
We will use a short check to separate safe looking setups from safe setups.