THE ANSWER
Start with one frequent, bounded task where the inputs are understood and a reviewer can check the output. Assess information handling and the consequences of an error before comparing convenience or potential time savings.
A five-question workflow assessment
This is our proposed assessment method, not an industry standard or a tool ranking. Interview the person doing the work and the person accepting the output. Use recent examples of the task to challenge assumptions about where time goes.
| Question | Evidence to collect | Decision implication |
|---|---|---|
| How often does the task occur? | Your actual weekly or monthly task count | A rare task may not justify setup effort. |
| Are the inputs ready? | Where the source comes from, its completeness and access permissions | Fix unclear or incomplete inputs before automating. |
| Can the output be checked? | Acceptance checks and a named reviewer | Do not proceed without a workable review method. |
| What happens if it is wrong? | Downstream use, possible harm and reversibility | Limit the first pilot to a bounded internal output. |
| Does it fit your systems? | Approved accounts, handover steps and export requirements | Include rekeying and record keeping in the effort. |
A fictional firm choosing its first task
Imagine a small advice firm with inconsistent internal meeting handovers. Its advisers already write notes, but administrators spend time clarifying actions. The first pilot could draft an internal action list from a fictional or appropriately approved record, with the source alongside it.
The same firm could also consider generating recommendations or sending automatic client emails. Those outputs have different consequences and review requirements. In this illustration, the bounded handover is chosen because owners, dates and unresolved questions can be compared directly with the source. This is a reasoned example, not a claim that meeting notes are every firm’s best starting point.
Write the decision in a short brief
Define the output narrowly enough that two people can agree whether it is acceptable. “Use AI for meetings” is too broad; “prepare an internal list of recorded actions, owners, dates and open questions from approved notes” is testable.
- Task and purpose: one internal output and its intended user.
- Inputs: permitted source material, access and information-handling arrangements.
- Review: who checks facts, unresolved points and downstream use.
- Measures: preparation, drafting, correction and review time; errors by type.
- Decision: who can stop the pilot, what triggers a stop and when it will be reviewed.
Settle the boundaries before client information is used
Our practical starting point is fictional training data. Moving to client material requires your firm to resolve the actual purpose, data protection arrangements, supplier terms, access and retention. A successful fictional exercise does not answer those questions.
The FCA sets out an approach grounded in existing regulatory frameworks. Use its own guidance when assessing your obligations; our assessment method is business guidance.
Source: FCA: AI and the FCA, our approach (checked 8 September 2026) ↗
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.