Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a real shift in the conversations happening around AI.
Not that long ago, people were asking what it might be able to do.
Now they’re talking about what it’s already doing.
People are comparing different tools, sharing how much time they’ve saved and swapping ideas on everything from meeting notes and task creation to document generation and form filling.
I found myself reading one of those discussions this week and it really got me thinking.
Interestingly, nobody was talking about replacing advisers.
Or technical judgement.
Or suitability.
Instead, they were talking about saving time.
That felt significant.
Because maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question.
Rather than asking whether AI can produce a document, perhaps we should be asking what becomes more valuable once producing the document takes less time.
That thought stayed with me throughout the week, particularly because of the conversations I was having with advice firms.
One firm got in touch on a Friday. We met on the Monday, agreed everything by Wednesday, completed the onboarding on Thursday and had them ready to send work by Friday. They needed support quickly, but they also wanted a provider willing to fit around the way they already worked, rather than asking them to adopt someone else’s templates and processes.
Another firm wasn’t in a hurry at all. They wanted another conversation, more technical information and time to complete their own due diligence before making a decision.
One of our existing clients asked what the maximum level of support we could provide over the next six months would be as their business continues to grow.
Another firm asked whether, once we’d completed the suitability report, we could also take ownership of implementing the advice across every case we worked on.
And one conversation stood out more than any other.
The firm already had an in-house team.
They weren’t looking to replace it.
They wanted experienced technical support around a less experienced team. People they could bounce ideas off, challenge difficult cases with and help develop confidence over time.
When I looked back over the week, something became obvious.
None of those conversations were really about report writing.
They were about confidence.
Ownership.
Consistency.
Experience.
They were about knowing there was someone there when capacity suddenly changed, when a complex case landed on the desk, or when another perspective would help strengthen a recommendation.
That feels like quite a significant shift.
For years, much of the conversation around outsourced support has centred on producing suitability reports.
Can you write the report?
How quickly can you turn it around?
How much does it cost?
Those questions still matter.
But increasingly, I’m hearing different ones.
Can you support our team?
Can you help us improve consistency?
Can you take ownership of implementation?
Can you strengthen our processes?
Can you adapt to the way our business already works?
They’re very different conversations.
And I don’t think many people would argue that technology is going to take more of the repetitive work off our desks over the next few years.
Personally, I think that’s a positive thing.
If technology can reduce the time spent formatting documents, moving information between systems or producing a first draft, it gives us more time to focus on the things that genuinely improve advice.
Technical judgement.
Critical thinking.
Supporting advisers.
Developing less experienced team members.
Improving operational consistency.
Strengthening the evidence behind recommendations.
Maybe that’s where the real value has always been.
For me, the more interesting question isn’t whether technology can produce a document.
It’s whether it can help firms produce better, more consistent advice.
Can it identify missing information before a case progresses?
Can it highlight inconsistencies that might otherwise be missed?
Can it strengthen the evidence behind a recommendation?
Can it give firms greater oversight across every case, rather than just the ones selected for review?
Those feel like much more valuable questions.
And I suspect they’re the conversations we’ll be having far more often over the next few years.
Technology will continue to evolve.
So will the way we all work.
But I don’t believe the future is about replacing people.
I think it’s about giving experienced professionals more time to do the things technology can’t.
To challenge.
To question.
To coach.
To improve.
And ultimately, to help firms deliver better advice.
I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts.
Has technology changed what you expect from suitability support, or has it simply changed where you think the real value now sits?
Further Reading
If you missed the first edition of Behind Better Advice, you can read it here:
If you’d like to learn more about how we support financial planning firms with suitability consulting, annual reviews and operational support, you’ll find more information here:
