A piece in AccountingWeb Makes a point that deserves more attention than it is getting in finance functions right now: banning AI tools at work does not stop people using them, it just moves that use onto somebody's personal phone. The argument is straightforward. Staff who find AI tools useful will carry on using them whether or not the firm sanctions it. A policy of prohibition does not remove the behaviour, it removes the firm's visibility of the behaviour. For practices and finance teams handling client data, that is a far worse position than the one the ban was meant to avoid.
What this means
For a CFO, a PE portfolio operator, or an SME owner, this is not an abstract governance debate. If your finance team, your deal team, or your advisers are already using AI tools informally, a blanket ban does not make that stop, it makes it harder to see. Client data, deal information, and commercially sensitive material can end up pasted into consumer-grade tools on personal devices with no record of what went in, what came out, or who approved it. That is a bigger exposure than sanctioned, monitored use ever was. The firms that treat this seriously are not asking whether to allow AI. They are asking where it is already in use, what controls are missing, and how to bring that usage inside the firm's own governance rather than outside it.The wider picture
This sits inside a broader shift in how smaller firms and advisory practices are approaching AI. The conversation has moved on from whether AI tools are useful, that question is largely settled, towards how firms manage the risk that comes with adoption happening faster than policy can keep up. Lower-mid-market businesses are often the most exposed here. They rarely have a dedicated IT security function, their policies tend to be informal or unwritten, and decisions about which tools staff use are frequently made individually rather than centrally. That gap between informal adoption and formal governance is exactly where data leakage, compliance exposure, and reputational risk take root, and it tends to widen quietly until something forces it into view.How we think about it
This is the territory our AI readiness work sits in. We start with an assessment of how AI tools are actually being used across a business today, not how a policy document says they should be used, because the two are rarely the same. From there we identify where assistant deployment makes sense, which tools are fit for purpose, and what data those tools should never touch. The approach is built around governance from day one: clear rules on what can and cannot go into an AI tool, logging and audit trails so usage can be reviewed, and a deployment plan that gives staff sanctioned tools good enough that they stop reaching for unmanaged alternatives. The point is not to slow adoption down, it is to make it visible and defensible.Where we can help
If you are a founder, an SME owner, or operating a portfolio company and you suspect AI tools are already in use across your business without a formal framework around them, that is the moment to act, before an informal habit becomes a data incident. We help businesses in this position get an honest picture of current usage, put governance and audit trails in place, and deploy sanctioned AI tools that staff actually want to use instead of working around. The outcome is a firm that is AI-ready without carrying the risk of ungoverned, invisible adoption.If you want your firm AI-ready, safely, book a consultation:Book a consultation.
