I'd narrow 'an algorithm cannot shoulder the professional risk' to 'it can't be the one who signs', because the practical consequence is where the sign-off sits. When I use AI to list the spots that need a check, the list only tells me where to look; a person still makes the final call against the sources. In a proposal, that could mean naming the decision the sponsor has to defend upward and marking the evidence for it as have, partial or missing. How do you keep absorbing that fear from turning into liability nobody priced?
A Manager delivering a flawless artefact while a Partner absorbs fear and drives change is the split I would hand any senior consultant. AI makes the artefact cheaper every month, so the paid part moves even further toward what you describe: owning the risk and getting people through the change.
I'd narrow 'an algorithm cannot shoulder the professional risk' to 'it can't be the one who signs', because the practical consequence is where the sign-off sits. When I use AI to list the spots that need a check, the list only tells me where to look; a person still makes the final call against the sources. In a proposal, that could mean naming the decision the sponsor has to defend upward and marking the evidence for it as have, partial or missing. How do you keep absorbing that fear from turning into liability nobody priced?
Yes, it’s like the whole previous model is totally inverted. Great article and great insights.
Thanks Chris.
A Manager delivering a flawless artefact while a Partner absorbs fear and drives change is the split I would hand any senior consultant. AI makes the artefact cheaper every month, so the paid part moves even further toward what you describe: owning the risk and getting people through the change.