Anxious accountants can take a deep breath, as recent data shows that human clients do not especially crave a 100% AI-led experience versus one where human accountants use AI to provide better service. Indeed, there are many circumstances where most would prefer AI not be involved at all.
Processing Content
This is according to recent data from accounting practice management solutions provider Karbon, which found that only a minority of clients are OK with AI completely taking over a task with no human involvement whatsoever. Far more clients want either a human being assisted by AI or, even more commonly, a fully human AI-free experience.
For example, only 22% said they wanted an AI to handle crisis management, 36% said they wanted a human assisted with AI, and 58% said they just wanted a human. Similar disparities exist in strategic and financial planning, tax planning and filing, operational HR and advisory, compliance and tax calculations, payroll processing, technology advisory and anomaly detection. In none of these cases did more people want a fully AI experience, even in tasks dominated by repetitive rules-based processes such as payroll (29% for only AI, 43% for humans plus AI, and 46% for only humans) or data-forward tasks like anomaly detection (35%, 42% and 37% respectively).
madedee – stock.adobe.com
While much is made of accounting’s rapid technological development, the survey data found that a firm’s tech stack is much less important than its trust, integrity and value. The top reason cited by clients for why they chose their accountant, at 39%, was “trust and perceived integrity. The very bottom reason, at 12%, was “technology and client portals.” This is not because clients do not value efficiency or value, but they see these things more in terms of the relationship they have with their professional.
Karbon did note that priorities change depending on a company’s age, but tech was still low overall on the priority scale. Karbon found startups, which are likely to be tech-forward and bootstrapped, are more interested in shopping on price (23%) and technology (16%). But by the time a business reaches maturity, technology has fallen to 8%, and trust has climbed from 29% to 50%.
This is because, according to the report, when clients enlist an accountant, they want more than someone who will perform a particular task. They want someone who can be a partner and advisor over the long term, a trusted professional, if you will. It has long been said that, ultimately, this is a people business. Karbon’s recent polling data finds this has not changed yet.
“Ask any business owner about their accountant and you will rarely hear a description of a service. Instead, you will hear a story. Nobody says, ‘She files on time.’ They tell you about how their accountant navigated the challenges of COVID, helping them save their family-run store. They tell you about the call that changed how they priced their work or the financial creativity that helped them expand their business. The relationship is the thing they remember, and the relationship is the thing they describe,” said the report.
This is further borne out when survey respondents were asked to name things about their accountant that AI could never replace. Karbon noted they did not name technical skills, accuracy, tax knowledge or regulatory compliance but, instead, the relationship. Their accountant remembers their kids’ names and asks how they’re doing in school, they banter about music and bands they like, they meet regularly for lunch, they act proactively and demonstrate they really know their client’s business. This ongoing personal relationship feeds into another thing clients say AI won’t replace, which is the simple act of being there for them in their most difficult moments and emotionally supporting them under pressure.
This relationship, according to survey respondents, is informed by the accountant’s deep knowledge of the client’s history, goals and specific circumstances, discovered over years of conversations and questions. Clients also say their human accountants are much better suited for handling ambiguous situations and edge cases as they have actual professional experience versus a dataset that simulates it. And finally there is a sense that the accountant has an actual incentive to make sure their clients do well, as it means more money for the firm, as opposed to an AI that has no stakes at all.
Further, if an accountant does a poor job, you can fire them and find another. An AI might be able to word a good apology, but there is no actual contrition behind it because it is a non-sentient computer program.
“This dynamic resembles the one between an athlete and a coach: the plan matters more because somebody who knows the client is watching whether they follow it. Between the two directions of accountability—a professional who answers for the work, and a client who answers to the relationship—it’s a powerful differentiator that cannot be replaced,” said the report.
This is not to say that clients are uniformly against AI. It’s just that they want their accountants to use it not necessarily to churn out tax returns like an assembly line but, rather, to add further value to what they already do. While definitely a minority, there were still material proportions of people who did want AI to handle 100% of a task, and an even larger share wanted their accountants to be using AI. But AI alone is not going to be a big positive differentiator. It’s more about how AI is used.
For instance, just doing things faster does not impress most clients. Asked if AI lets their accountants finish a project in half the time, how their fees should change, and 79% said the fee should either stay the same or even go down. In comparison, 21% said they would pay a premium for such speed, a significant proportion but still much smaller than the percentage of those who do not value speed as much.
In contrast, comparing an accountant who completes a task in two weeks with traditional methods versus one who delivers in three days using AI but uses the remaining time to proactively review financials for risks, 51% of respondents would choose the latter versus 36% who preferred the former. Similarly, if an accountant used AI to handle 90% of routine work but used that saved time on monthly calls to discuss strategy, 81% of respondents said they’d find their accountant more valuable. Karbon noted that it appears clients would rather have their accountants reinvest the time saved with AI into personal attention versus discounting services.
“Clients see the true value in AI when it unlocks capabilities and outcomes they didn’t previously have. That one-on-one meeting could open up proactive advice, better insights, more of the relationship, additional services, and greater impact for both the firm and the client. The AI opportunity for the accounting profession is to do the work that wasn’t previously possible. Clients will pay for that,” said the report.
With the expectation of trust also comes an expectation that accountants will tell clients where and how they use AI. Karbon found 89% want at least some transparency and 57% want full transparency. In contrast, only 9% said they didn’t really need to know, and 2% said they don’t want any AI involved in their accounting at all.
Based on all this data, Karbon recommended that firms should let AI handle the routine work and invest the saved time into a monthly one-hour meeting for each client to deliver more proactive advice, deeper insights, more of the relationship, additional services and greater impact. Firms should also write an AI disclosure policy before clients ask for one, price new capability as new value, and keep humans in the moments that carry the relationship.
Credit: Source link
