Advisory in 2026

Fixing processes is challenging, but changing behaviour is often harder. A key theme in the conversation was the effort required to move toward shared responsibility.

In practice, this meant creating a culture where people feel accountable not only for their own work, but for outcomes as a whole. Collaboration across teams became more intentional, especially in an environment where different organisational histories and working styles had to align.

This, of course, takes time. Resistance was natural, and habits took time to change. What helped was transparency. Issues were discussed more openly, and responsibility gradually became more evenly shared. As a result, advisory work became less individual and more collective, improving both quality and consistency.

Client demand is still largely driven by regulation, but more specifically by uncertainty. Every time new regulation appears, organisations face questions they cannot answer alone. With DORA, NIS2, GDPR or the AI Act, new rules create complexity and ambiguity. Clients need help interpreting what applies to them, what actions are required, and what risks they face if they get it wrong. That is where advisory expertise becomes essential.

What has changed is the level of expertise clients expect. Clients are becoming more selective and less tolerant of basic or junior-led work. As tools take over routine tasks, the value of experience becomes clearer. Clients increasingly look for advisors who can interpret complexity, challenge assumptions and guide decisions with confidence, not just apply a template.

Artificial intelligence featured prominently in the discussion, but without exaggeration. Both Pim and Max were clear that AI is neither a miracle solution nor a threat to advisory as a profession.

AI is effective for drafting, structuring information and accelerating work. At the same time, it struggles with context, nuance and validation. It can produce outputs that appear convincing but do not hold up under closer scrutiny.

In advisory work, where accountability matters, that distinction is critical. The most effective use of AI is as a support for human expertise, not a replacement for it. Organisations that understand its limits and challenge its output tend to gain the most value.

Regulation will continue to shape advisory work in 2026. Efforts to simplify European regulation are underway, which should reduce complexity in the long run. In the short term, however, organisations will face a transition period marked by overlap and uncertainty, which increases the need for interpretation and guidance.

At the same time, automation is changing how advisory work is delivered, particularly in assurance and control testing. Manual testing is increasingly replaced by automated approaches. This does not reduce the need for advisory expertise, but it shifts the focus toward designing controls, interpreting outcomes and explaining implications.

As a result, skill requirements evolve and advisory organisations that invest in developing these capabilities will be better positioned for the future.

When asked what organisations should invest in to stay relevant in 2026, the answer was clear: people.

Training, education and retention were highlighted as critical priorities. The reason is simple. Tools can speed up work, but they cannot replace judgment, context or accountability. Those remain human responsibilities. Strong expertise also determines whether tools are used effectively or simply add complexity.

Technology works best in organisations where the level of expertise is already high and where people understand both the tool and the environment in which it is applied.

One message stood out clearly during the conversation: tools cannot fix broken organisations; they amplify what is already there. If roles are unclear, accountability is weak or processes do not work, adding technology will not solve those problems. Real change starts with fixing the organisation itself.

Despite the challenges around capacity pressure, increasing complexity, rising expectations and fast-moving technology, Pim and Max remain optimistic about the future of advisory. The profession is becoming more collaborative and more closely connected to clients. 

At the same time, leadership styles are evolving. A new generation is stepping into decision-making roles with a more open and pragmatic approach to collaboration and change. This shift supports a form of advisory that is more partnership-driven and less hierarchical.

In 2026, advisory won’t be defined by who has adopted the most tools. What will really make the difference is whether an organisation understands how it truly operates and has the experience to guide clients through uncertainty. If teams really want to help shape what comes next (instead of just keep pace with the change, they’ll need to invest in their people.