THE ANSWER
AI can assist with organising information and drafting text. A useful paraplanning workflow still needs someone to resolve missing evidence, check the reasoning and confirm that the finished work meets the agreed brief. Start by defining the task and its reviewer.
Start with the work, rather than the software
A report is the visible output of a longer process. The Chartered Insurance Institute describes paraplanning as supporting an adviser through research, analysis and report preparation. That wider role matters when deciding what a drafting tool can actually replace.
Our suggested approach is to break one familiar case into tasks: gathering inputs, identifying gaps, researching options, preparing the draft and reviewing the finished work. Ask which task causes the delay. Automating a different task may make the document appear sooner without getting the case completed sooner.
Source: CII: the role of a paraplanner ↗
A practical division of tasks
This is a proposed working framework, not a product assessment. What a specific system can do depends on its capabilities, configuration and the inputs supplied.
| Task | Possible AI assistance | Human work to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Organise the file | Extract and arrange supplied information | Check the source, dates and missing information |
| Prepare a first draft | Populate a structure from approved material | Check accuracy, completeness and case relevance |
| Research and analysis | Help organise questions or supplied evidence | Assess the evidence and resolve conflicting information |
| Finish the case | Support wording and formatting | Review the reasoning and agree final responsibilities |
Measure completed work, not the speed of a first draft
For a small trial, record how long a case takes from an agreed complete brief to an accepted output. Include time spent preparing inputs, operating the tool, correcting errors and reviewing revisions. Separate active working time from time waiting for information.
For example, a draft produced twenty minutes sooner is not a twenty-minute saving if it creates half an hour of additional checking. This is an illustrative comparison, not a claim about the performance of any supplier. Keep the same definition of a completed case before and after the trial.
Questions to settle before a trial
Use a representative sample and an approved working environment. Agree the boundaries with everyone who will prepare or review the work.
- Which documents and data may be used, and in which approved systems?
- How will an unsupported statement or missing fact be identified?
- Who checks the output against the original evidence?
- Which case types should remain outside the trial?
- What would count as a successful result, including review time?
Where paraplanning support fits
If the bottleneck is a shortage of people who can complete and check the work, another drafting tool may not solve it. External paraplanning can be considered alongside your existing team and technology, with scope and review responsibilities agreed in advance.
The first conversation should cover case mix, required deliverables, current systems, expected volume and the way queries are resolved. Avoid comparing services on a report price alone when the work included differs.
APPLY THIS TO YOUR FIRM
Want help turning this into a practical AI workflow?
Work with Steven Calvert on an assessment, a defined pilot or staff training for your IFA business.
Explore AI implementation ↗Prepared with AI assistance. Our examples identify their sources, method and limitations. This article provides business guidance, not personal financial advice, legal advice or a product endorsement. Editorial approach and commercial interests.