Only 6% of UK firms would use AI time for advisory

Ravical has published research showing that only 6% of UK accounting firms would use time freed up by AI and automation to generate new advisory revenue, highlighting a gap between firms' growth ambitions and their ability to deliver advisory work at scale.

The findings are based on responses from 500 senior decision-makers at accounting firms with more than 50 employees. They challenge the assumption that greater efficiency in compliance work will naturally lead firms to expand higher-margin advisory services.

In practice, most respondents said it would not. The data shows that 94% of firms would not use additional time created by AI or automation to grow advisory revenue.

Instead, firms pointed to structural barriers within their organisations, including skills gaps, inadequate preparation infrastructure and a lack of repeatable processes for turning advisory opportunities into income.

Half said the main obstacle was a mismatch between compliance and advisory capabilities. The research found that firms are generally well set up for process-led compliance work, but are less prepared to identify, develop and convert advisory opportunities consistently.

That matters because advisory work is widely seen as the next source of margin growth. The survey found that 89% of firms believe advisory services will drive future margin expansion, while 48% said expanding advisory is their main strategic focus over the next three years.

Yet many appear unable to match that ambition with delivery. Compliance work is predictable and process-driven, making it easier to standardise and automate, while advisory work depends more on judgement, context and commercial understanding.

Respondents recognised that distinction, with 89% agreeing that compliance scales through automation while advisory relies on individual expertise.

In practice, many firms still depend on systems and workflows built for compliance. As a result, advisory work remains tied to individual effort rather than a repeatable model that can be rolled out across teams and clients.

Ravical's data suggests the problem is not identifying advisory openings in the first place. Almost all respondents, 96%, said they were confident they could spot advisory opportunities across their client base.

But firms also said they were losing business. On average, respondents estimated that 33% of their clients' potential advisory spend still goes to competing providers.

That gap between identification and conversion appears central to the report's conclusions. Firms may believe they can see the opportunities, but many lack the internal structure needed to capture the revenue consistently.

When asked how they would use time freed up by automation, respondents gave answers that underlined the pressure on existing operating models. They were as likely to put that time into clearing compliance backlogs, cutting working hours or reducing headcount as they were to direct it towards advisory services.

The research found that 28% would use extra time for compliance backlogs, 26% for reduced working hours and 17% for headcount reduction. Those choices suggest efficiency gains may be absorbed by operational demands rather than redirected into new services.

Joris Van der Gucht, chief executive officer and co-founder of Ravical, said the results point to a deeper issue in the profession.

"There's a clear assumption in the market that if firms free up time, advisory growth will follow.

"What our data shows is that the constraint isn't time, but whether firms are equipped to use that time differently."

Advisory gap

The figures also come at a time when many firms report strong underlying performance, with respondents pointing to growing revenue per client and solid compliance margins.

Even so, the report argues that those conditions may not last. If growth continues to depend mainly on compliance work and existing pricing strength, firms could struggle over time to build a broader service mix.

Van der Gucht said the profession has spent years making compliance work more efficient, but advisory services require a different operating model.

"The industry has spent years optimising compliance delivery.

"The next phase is different. It's about building the systems that allow advisory services to be delivered consistently, rather than relying on individual capacity."