Using AI for specialist work — keeping decisions in human hands
Your team wants to use AI to draft work instructions or prepare specialist information. A structured approach can help make such drafts useful within a specialist department: it defines what the tool does and how people check its outputs before they are used further. I advise those responsible in compliance, tax and legal departments on designing this workflow.
The starting point: one use case, one clear task
We start with a defined task within a team, such as drafting an internal work instruction using specified specialist sources. Together, we examine which steps AI should support, what information is needed and where an independent professional decision remains necessary. Existing work instructions and controls are taken into account.
The focus is on documentation-intensive processes at financial institutions. The advice is also for comparable specialist departments in other businesses where sources must be assessed, outputs justified and approvals recorded in a traceable way. The particular workflow matters, not the sector alone.
What you receive
You receive a written basis for deciding on the selected use case and a related review and approval process. It describes what AI is intended to do in that workflow, what still needs to be clarified before it is used and who is responsible. The outcome may also be a recommendation not to use AI for a particular step or to defer its use for now.
Task and information boundaries
The description defines the purpose, tool and proposed inputs. It records which information may be used under the requirements that have been clarified and what must remain excluded. Unresolved data questions are identified as outstanding prerequisites.
Review before further use
The process identifies who checks statements against the specified sources, assesses the output professionally and approves its further use. It also records how the review is documented and when an output must be rejected or a case of doubt referred to the responsible person.
Working through the process with examples
We work through selected examples with the staff involved: a draft cites a passage that does not support its claim; an important qualification is missing; two sources conflict. We record where further use must stop, who is responsible for clarification and which rule needs to be made clearer. This turns the description into a basis for the team's work.
A separate follow-on engagement can build on this. I develop the rules into work instructions, explain them to the team and support the specialist evaluation of a limited trial. Feedback from their use informs revisions.
Specialist support with a clear division of responsibilities
The advice structures the specialist workflow. For questions of AI law, data protection or IT security, we agree which separate specialist contributions are required. A work instruction cannot take the place of unresolved prerequisites: your company decides whether to use the tool once they have been clarified. Technical setup of the tool is not part of this engagement.