Demystifying multi-agent systems
Agentic AI is rapidly transforming the way organizations operate, enabling autonomous analysis, recommendations, and task execution. However, as organizations scale and their operations become increasingly interconnected, single agents, no matter how intelligent, often encounter roadblocks. Real enterprise environments are messy, multidimensional, and filled with dependencies across departments, systems, and data streams.
This is where multi-agent systems (MAS) come into play. Instead of relying on one agent to do everything, MAS deploy a coordinated ecosystem of specialized agents that collaborate, negotiate, and solve problems collectively. The result is scalable intelligence, efficiency, and high-level performance. But before we dive into it, let’s understand the difference between agentic AI and MAS.
Agentic AI vs. multi-agent systems
Agentic AI (single agents)
Agentic AI refers to an autonomous software agent that can perceive context, make decisions, and act toward a specific goal. It goes a step further from traditional AI tools that are only reactive and use decision-making frameworks to choose the best actions and adapt to changing environments. These agents excel in clearly bounded tasks, such as answering customer queries, retrieving enterprise data, or generating reports.
Strengths of single agents:
- Easy to deploy and integrate
- High accuracy within a narrow domain
- Predictable, consistent performance
Limitations:
- Narrow scope and limited adaptability
- Cannot manage multidimensional workflows (e.g., forecasting + sourcing + logistics)
As enterprises look beyond isolated tasks and toward end-to-end automation, single agents, although valuable, are no longer sufficient.
Multi-agent systems
A MAS is a coordinated network of multiple specialized agents working together toward a shared objective. Each agent has a unique role, expertise, and dataset; collectively, they form a distributed intelligence system. Although agents remain autonomous, they also cooperate and coordinate in agent structures.
Benefits of MAS:
- Scalability: Add or modify agents without redesigning the full system
- Robust: Handles both simple and complex tasks
- Resilience: Workload distributed across agents reduces failure risk
- Adaptability: System adapts dynamically as conditions change
Challenges:
- Requires strong orchestration and governance
- Involves monitoring agent interactions, data exchanges, and conflict resolution
Although single agents are quite powerful, multi-agent systems increase the potential for accuracy, adaptability, and scalability, thus outperforming single-agent systems.
The structures of collective intelligence
At the heart of MAS is orchestration, the method by which the multiple agents coordinate actions, share information, and resolve tasks. Different orchestration models provide different strengths depending on enterprise complexity and risk tolerance.
Orchestration models
1. Centralized orchestration
This model functions as though one ‘lead’ agent manages decisions, task assignments, and integration points.
- Advantage: Clear control and consistent outcomes
- Risk: Potential single point of failure
Ideal for regulated environments or predictable workflows.
2. Decentralized orchestration
Agents collaborate and negotiate directly with one another without a central controller.
- Advantage: Highly resilient and adaptive
- Challenge: Maintaining alignment across multiple systems as they scale
Suitable for dynamic, fast-changing operations (e.g., supply chain networks).
3. Hybrid orchestration
This orchestration allows a switch between centralized governance and decentralized execution, depending on the challenges at hand. This is the most common model in enterprise MAS adoption. Researchers have identified that this is the best mode to simultaneously manage a large and diverse group of stakeholders. Hybrid orchestration is able to balance control with flexibility and address emergent network challenges by switching between orchestration modes.
Organizational structures for MAS
MAS can adopt different organizational patterns depending on the nature of tasks:
- Hierarchical: A tree-like structure where authority cascades downward.
- Holonic: “Holarchies” where agents act as self-contained units that are part of a larger whole.
- Coalition-based: Agents form temporary teams to solve specific problems.
- Team structure: High collaboration, each agent relies on others to improve group performance.
These models allow enterprises to design MAS architectures that mirror real organizational behaviors.
The role of human intervention
As AI agents become more capable and start handling complex, multi-step workflows, it’s tempting to imagine a future where systems operate entirely on their own. However, the reality is that even in environments where automation runs deep, human judgment is irreplaceable. AI agents can process data at extraordinary speed and coordinate decisions across multiple systems, yet the most sensitive choices, those tied to financial exposure, compliance obligations, customer impact, or safety, still require human validation.
For enterprises moving toward MAS, governance becomes just as important as the technology itself. Clear decision-making pathways, ethical guardrails, and validation for high-stakes outcomes ensure that agents behave predictably and responsibly. For example, a virtual banking assistant might analyze patterns and recommend credit adjustments with impressive precision, but the authority to approve those adjustments still rests with a human officer who understands the broader implications.
Ultimately, MAS isn’t about eliminating people; it’s about enabling them. By offloading repetitive, data-heavy, and low-judgment tasks to coordinated AI agents, organizations free up their teams to focus on strategic thinking, relationship-building, and decisions that truly require human insight.
Industry applications of multi-agent systems
MAS provides value across industries where decisions depend on multiple variables, datasets, and dependencies.
Fashion & apparel
Fashion operates in an environment where trends shift quickly, supply chains are global, and demand is often volatile. In this context, MAS coordinates demand forecasting, sourcing, and allocation using trend data. Agents are able to guide stock and purchasing decisions by analyzing trends, weather patterns, sales patterns, and channel performance. Because of this, MAS reduces overproduction and improves sell-through.
| Pro tip: Fortude’s signal-based forecasting and inventory optimization agents apply MAS principles to improve forecast accuracy and automatically generate smarter purchase order recommendations. |
Healthcare
Coordinating diagnostics, patient pathways, and resource planning requires real-time, cross-department collaboration. Agents can be utilized to coordinate these aspects making the healthcare system more efficient and reducing administrative workload. MAS could also enable faster triage, improve resource allocation, and share real-time insights across departments. This results in faster care delivery, smoother operations, and fewer bottlenecks.
Food & Beverage (F&B)
F&B operations benefit from MAS due to the high complexity of quality control, demand variability, and perishability required in this competitive industry. Agents can collaborate to track freshness and temperature exposure, maintaining food safety, predict demand for seasonal items minimizing waste, and monitor compliance and safety parameters. This optimizes the entire cycle of procurement, production, and replenishment.
Distribution & logistics
In distribution networks, MAS is able to improve routing and warehouse coordination by supporting real-time adaptation during peak periods and fluctuating demand. It is also useful for load planning and inventory balancing, which reduces delivery inefficiencies and strengthens order accuracy across multiple sites. Overall, it enhances agility and operational visibility.
Fortude’s multi-agent architecture
Fortude is transforming its AI capabilities from powerful single-agent intelligence to a coordinated multi-agent ecosystem designed specifically for enterprise environments. At the core is Charlie, Fortude’s enterprise AI assistant that now has agentic capabilities. Charlie is supported by a three-agent MAS architecture, each playing a specialized role:
- Charlie-One – Fortude’s core RAG intelligence engine that retrieves, and synthesizes contextual enterprise knowledge. It ensures that every agent responds with relevant, accurate information.
- CharlieX- A business intelligence and insights agent that connects directly to ERP and CRM systems and performs real-time analysis and identifies anomalies.
- Charlie M3 Agent- A secure, Infor-specific execution agent built to interact with Infor M3.
Charlie is powered by Microsoft Azure AI Foundry and integrated with Microsoft Copilot. This setup enables:
- Supply chain teams to instantly surface high-priority order lines.
- CFOs to assess whether delivery delays will materially affect financial results.
- CEOs to see how delivery delays influence overall company performance, broken down by region.
Why multi-agent systems are the future of enterprise AI
While single agents bring autonomy, enterprises are moving beyond this toward interconnected, intelligence at scale via MAS as it delivers foresight, resilience, adaptability, and enterprise-grade performance.
As organizations prepare for the next stage of digital transformation, MAS is no longer a futuristic concept, it is a strategic investment and a competitive advantage. Fortude is already leading the way by transforming MAS into practical systems that enhance forecasting, operations, decision-making, and cross-enterprise intelligence, making your operations intelligence-driven.
FAQs
Regression testing is the practice of re-running previously executed tests to confirm that recent changes haven’t unintentionally broken existing functionality. Manual regression testing is a specific method of performing regression tests where testers execute each test case manually, step-by-step, without the aid of automation tools. This directly contrasts with automated regression testing.
Yes, manual regression tests can be appropriate in certain phases. For example, in early-stage projects, exploratory testing, UI changes, or volatile features where scripting overhead is too costly. But it should be tactical, manual regression is best suited as a complementary strategy, not as the long-term default for regression coverage.
It is important to prioritize those that offer the highest return on investment and long-term stability. Start with features that are relatively stable and not subject to frequent changes. This ensures your automation scripts remain reliable over time. You can also focus on high-frequency test cases such as login flows, search functionality, checkout processes, or APIs.
The ROI of automated regression testing becomes increasingly significant over time. Though initial setup has upfront cost, long-term ROI comes from faster release cycles, fewer escaped defects, reduced resource spend, and higher team leverage. It shifts quality assurance from a reactive process into a scalable, proactive practice that supports both speed and reliability in software delivery.
Absolutely, that’s the ideal path. Fortest doesn’t need to replace manual testing all at once. A hybrid model where manual regression testing is used for edge cases or emergent features while gradually shifting stable flows into Fortest’s automation environment can work best.
Subscribe to our blog to know all the things we do
