AI and building compliance - The case for caution

In practice, this looks less like AI replacing people and more like AI supporting elements of the job that don’t require a human eye in the first stage. It’s a need that shows up every day in the work of managing compliance. For example, certification renewals can be tracked and flagged when due dates approach, and missing or incomplete documentation can be caught and surfaced rather than slipping through the cracks or being discovered during an audit. 

The same logic applies at scale when looking across a whole portfolio: patterns that might normally take someone weeks to notice, buried within piles of documentation, can be spotted more quickly than when done manually, saving valuable time. None of this removes the need for professional judgement or final sign-off, but it creates space for that judgement to be used in areas where it’s needed most. It’s a principle that platforms like QUOODA® are built to support, not replace. 

Where caution comes in 

Whilst AI is often used to tackle this sort of workload, with the speed of its responses mixed with its constantly evolving ability to read, analyse and report on a scale that cannot be matched by human involvement, its use in the compliance world doesn’t come without risk.  

As the novelty of AI begins to wear off and the extent of its capabilities becomes more widely understood, we’re seeing more people approach AI with caution. A recent report published by the Digital Futures Institute at King’s College London and Responsible AI UK found that 42 per cent of people are now actively limiting their AI usage due to privacy and security concerns – a hesitancy that may feel familiar to anyone handling sensitive building or safety data. 

That caution is well placed. AI can assist with some of the heavy lifting, but the onus and final judgement must always fall to humans for accuracy and accountability, not least because its output will only ever be as good as the input that it receives. 

Judgement still matters – and always will 

We are mindful of the level of anxiety towards AI, but equally aware that opinions – both cautiously optimistic and wary – can coexist. As portfolios continue to digitise and regulatory scrutiny increases, those who get the most out of AI won’t be the ones who adopt it the fastest or use it the most, but those who treat it as one thread of the entire evidencing process, not a substitute for it. It’s that distinction that matters.  

Used well, AI can bridge the gap between what’s happening across a portfolio and what those managing it can actually act on. Used incorrectly, it adds another layer of noise to an already stretched team. 

Daisy Hamilton, Group Marketing & Communications Manager, Ark Workplace Risk