Technology is speeding up. Advice still needs people.

There’s no shortage of commentary right now about where advice technology is heading.

AI tools are becoming more capable. Platforms are evolving quickly. Providers are talking about automation, integration, and efficiency as we move towards 2026 and beyond.

On paper, it all sounds promising.

But when you speak to advisers and paraplanners, what we refer to as Suitability Consultants, day to day, the conversation is a little more grounded. Less about what technology could do, and more about what it actually helps within real advice scenarios.

That gap between potential and practice is where most firms are currently operating.

 

What the recent tech conversation is really about

A few recent pieces have captured this tension well.

FT Adviser has explored how AI is being introduced across advice firms, particularly in areas like research support, documentation, and process efficiency. There’s a clear appetite to reduce admin pressure and free up adviser time, especially as capacity remains stretched. https://www.ftadviser.com/content/e0567ef2-002d-4599-abe5-c3fe7aa9b459

At the same time, there’s a recognition that AI is not a silver bullet. Another FT Adviser piece highlights the risks of over-relying on automated outputs without sufficient oversight, particularly where judgement, nuance, and client context matter. https://www.ftadviser.com/content/8eeab3d6-5109-4ecc-938d-f4b84d72c143

Professional Adviser has also weighed in, questioning whether the next wave of platform and tech change represents a genuine opportunity for advisers, or simply another layer to manage if processes are not fit for purpose first. https://www.professionaladviser.com/opinion/4523768/platforms-2026-bad-opportunity

Anthony Rafferty makes a similar point in his recent commentary. Technology only works when it supports clear processes and good decision making, rather than trying to fix structural issues after the fact. https://www.professionaladviser.com/opinion/4523731/anthony-rafferty-adviser-tech-fixes-processes-fit-purpose-2026

Taken together, the message is fairly consistent.

Technology can help, but only when it is built around how advice actually works.

 

Where AI genuinely helps in advice firms

Used well, AI can be a useful support layer.

We’re seeing firms use it effectively for things like:

• Helping summarise large volumes of information

• Supporting initial research and comparisons

• Spotting gaps or inconsistencies in data

• Reducing time spent on repetitive administrative tasks

All of this can create breathing space, which most firms welcome.

But it works best when it sits alongside experienced Suitability Consultants who understand advice, regulation, and client nuance.

AI can surface information. It cannot judge suitability in context.  It can draft text. It cannot sense-check intent.  It can flag patterns. It cannot challenge an adviser’s thinking when something does not quite sit right.

That distinction matters.

 

Why Suitability Consultants are still central, not optional

One thing we feel strongly about is that technology will never replace the role Suitability Consultants play, often known more widely as paraplanners, as a sounding board for advisers.

Being able to pick up the phone, talk through a complex case, or sanity-check a recommendation is not something software can replicate.

Suitability Consultants add value in the moments that matter most, for example:

• When a case sits outside the usual parameters

• When client objectives are unclear or conflicting

• When suitability hinges on judgement rather than rules

• When an adviser needs to talk through the “why”, not just the “what”

Those conversations are often where risks are spotted early and better outcomes are shaped.

Technology can support that process, but it should never replace it.

 

A practical lens firms can apply now

If you are reviewing technology in your firm, or being asked to adopt new tools, a few simple questions can help cut through the noise.

Before implementing anything new, ask:

• What part of the advice process is this actually improving

• Does it reduce friction, or just move it somewhere else

• Who is responsible for sense-checking the output

• How does it fit with existing workflows and standards

• What happens when a case does not fit the model

If those questions do not have clear answers, it is usually a sign that process needs attention before technology.

 

Regulation still expects judgement, not just systems

It’s also worth remembering that regulators are not looking for firms to outsource responsibility to technology.

The FCA continues to emphasise accountability, suitability, and evidencing good outcomes. Systems can support that, but they do not remove the need for human oversight and professional judgement.

Tools that generate outputs still need someone to stand behind the advice, explain it, and evidence why it is suitable for that client.

That expectation is not going away.

 

Getting the balance right

The firms we see making the most progress are not chasing every new tool.

They are doing three things well:

• Strengthening their core processes first

• Using technology to support people, not replace them

• Keeping experienced Suitability Consultants closely involved

That balance creates resilience. It also makes future tech changes easier to absorb, because the foundations are already sound.

 

Final thoughts

Technology will continue to evolve quickly. AI will become more capable. Platforms will keep changing.

But good advice still relies on clear thinking, professional judgement, and conversations between people who understand the realities of advising clients.

If this resonates with what you’re seeing in your own firm, we’d love to hear from you.  Got questions? Just reach out. No pitch, just people who get financial advice.