explainx / blog
How management consultants, strategy analysts, and independent advisors are using AI agents to compress research, accelerate deck production, and improve deliverable quality in 2026 — with the specific workflows that work and where human judgment remains essential.
Jun 24, 2026
HR is one of the most promising and most sensitive areas for AI application. This guide separates what AI reliably helps with in HR work today from where the risks are too high without careful design, and gives practical starting points for HR professionals building their own fluency.
Jul 10, 2026
OpenAI Academy's ChatGPT for Work page organizes async learning by role and industry. explainx.ai maps every track to what professionals actually need — and why live workshops beat on-demand modules for morning-after ROI.
Jul 9, 2026
If AI's job on your product team is recapping standups, you're leaving most of the value on the table. Here's how PMs are using AI for specs, research synthesis, prototyping, and scoping AI-powered features in 2026.
Stay ahead of every AI tool change that affects consulting and analysis work. explainx.ai tracks what practitioners are actually using — ranked skills, daily news, monthly courses, and an AI chatbot. $29/month. The AI Maker Bootcamp goes deeper for those who want structured, cohort-based learning.
Consulting and analysis is one of the professional domains where AI is producing the clearest productivity gains — not because AI can think strategically, but because so much of what consumes time in consulting work is structured, repeatable, and document-heavy: reading industry materials, synthesizing findings, building the narrative from known components, and producing the same types of outputs for different clients in different sectors.
A good consultant spends roughly 40% of their time on work that is mechanical in the sense of "this could be specified clearly enough to delegate to a junior associate following instructions." AI agents are, at their best, excellent at exactly that class of task — with the caveat that the instructions need to be just as clear as you would write for the associate, and the output needs the same verification you would apply to the associate's work before it reaches the client.
This guide covers how consultants and analysts are actually using AI in 2026 — the specific workflows, what works, what still requires significant caution, and what skills are worth building. Executives evaluating the same shift should start with AI for business leaders; HR and people-adjacent work is covered in AI for HR professionals.
The first and most reliable AI application for most consultants is research synthesis. Before an engagement, consultants need to understand a client's industry, their competitive position, recent news and regulatory changes, and the frameworks that apply to their situation. Assembling this picture manually from primary sources takes significant associate time and is highly repetitive across engagements.
The AI workflow that works:
Step 1 — Brief specification: Before opening any AI tool, write a research brief. What question are you trying to answer? What sources are in scope (SEC filings, earnings transcripts, analyst reports, news, regulatory documents)? What output format do you need (structured summary, comparison table, annotated reading list)? What does a good answer look like versus an incomplete one?
Step 2 — Source-grounded synthesis: Feed the relevant documents to an AI with the brief as the instruction. The output quality is directly proportional to the quality of the brief. Vague brief → vague synthesis. Precise brief → structured, usable output.
Step 3 — Verification pass: Before any finding from this synthesis appears in a client deliverable, verify it against the source. Every statistic, citation, and specific claim. This is not optional. AI synthesizing research frequently misquotes statistics from their original context, attributes findings to the wrong company, or generalizes from a specific case to a broader claim.
Step 4 — Gap identification: Use the AI output as a map of what the sources contain, then identify what the sources do not tell you — and decide how to get that information. AI synthesis does not know what it does not know. The gaps require human identification.
The consistent result consultants report: research that previously took a two-person team two days now takes one person a day. The intellectual work — deciding what to research, evaluating what the findings mean, identifying the gaps — is unchanged. The execution time is compressed.
Consulting decks are among the most high-value and time-consuming deliverables in the field. AI is useful for parts of this work; it cannot substitute for the core of it.
Populating slide content from a story structure: Once a consultant has specified the story — what the situation is, what the complication is, what the resolution is, what each slide needs to convey — AI can produce the first draft of body text, speaker notes, and data labels for each slide from research that has already been gathered.
This is the key constraint: the story structure must come from the consultant. AI cannot determine what the key insight should be, how to frame the recommendation for this specific client's context, or what order of arguments will land best in the room. It can populate the frame, not design it.
Table of contents drafting from project scope: Given a clear scope statement and a set of questions the engagement is answering, AI can propose a logical deck structure that consultants find useful as a starting point for discussion.
First-draft speaker notes: Generating speaker notes from slide content and a brief on the intended audience is a task AI handles consistently. The notes need editing, but starting from a draft is faster than starting from blank.
Knowing the client: Every consulting deliverable is shaped by deep knowledge of the specific client — their culture, their decision-making style, their history with similar initiatives, the internal politics of the recommendation. AI has none of this. The more client-specific the insight, the more irreplaceable the consultant.
Generating the key insight: The finding that makes a consulting deck valuable — the counterintuitive implication, the risk the client had not seen, the reframe of the problem — is the output of expertise, not synthesis. AI can describe patterns in data. Knowing which pattern matters and why requires judgment.
Slide design and visual communication: AI is still poor at translating analytical findings into consulting-quality visual formats. The intellectual work of deciding how to visualize a comparison, a process, or a causal argument remains manual.
For analysts whose work involves financial modeling and quantitative analysis, AI's most useful role is in narrative generation from structured data.
Variance commentary: Given a financial model and the key drivers of period-to-period changes, AI produces first-draft variance commentary that analysts find significantly faster to edit than to write from scratch. The output needs verification — AI sometimes misidentifies which driver is dominant or inverts the direction of an effect — but the draft is consistently faster than blank-page writing.
Scenario narrative: Generating the written description of a scenario and its implications from a quantified scenario model. The analyst defines the scenario; AI writes what it implies across the dimensions specified.
Earnings transcript synthesis: For research analysts, reading earnings call transcripts is a regular and time-consuming task. AI can produce structured summaries that extract guidance, management tone, strategic priorities, and analyst Q&A themes from full transcripts faster than manual reading.
What to verify without exception: Every specific figure, directional claim, and source reference in anything that leaves the team. AI reads tables and structured data imperfectly, particularly in PDF or scanned formats. A number that looks right in a draft may have been transposed, rounded from the wrong period, or taken from a different line item than intended.
Competitive intelligence is a natural fit for AI agents because it is a monitoring task — high volume, repeatable, structured, and the output is a set of findings for a human to interpret rather than a decision.
What a working competitive intelligence agent does: Monitors specified competitor sources (press releases, pricing pages, job listings, product changelogs, regulatory filings, social media), surfaces changes that match defined criteria (new product features, pricing moves, new market entries, leadership changes), and produces a structured weekly summary.
The value is systematic coverage. A consultant or analyst doing this manually will check some sources some of the time. An agent checks all of them, every time. What it catches is proportional to what you specify it to look for.
The instruction investment: Building a competitive intelligence agent that produces useful output requires a significant upfront investment in specification: what competitors, what sources, what types of changes matter, what output format serves the team, what is signal versus noise in your specific competitive context. This is the consultant's expertise applied to the tool rather than the research — and it is where the quality differential between practitioners comes from.
What an agent cannot replace: The interpretation layer. Knowing that a competitor's job listings are signaling a pivot into a new market segment, or that a pricing move is a competitive response to a specific threat, requires understanding the competitive context that does not live in any document the agent can read.
One of the least-discussed but highest-value AI applications for consulting firms and boutique advisory practices is knowledge retrieval — making prior work findable and usable.
Every engagement produces outputs: frameworks, research, client analysis, methodology documents. In most firms, this knowledge is locked in individual drives and largely unused after the engagement closes. New engagements re-derive the same conclusions for different clients in similar industries.
AI systems that index and retrieve prior work against new engagement contexts can substantially change this — surfacing relevant prior frameworks, comparable client analyses, and historical research as inputs to new engagement planning.
The pre-requisite: Your prior work needs to be in a searchable, indexed state. Engagements documented in consistent formats, in accessible systems, with reasonable metadata. Most firms are not here. Building the AI retrieval layer requires first solving the documentation hygiene problem — which is harder than the technology.
The skills that transfer across tools and model generations for consultants and analysts:
Writing analytical briefs: The skill of specifying precisely what question you are answering, from what sources, with what output format, and what makes a good answer versus a partial one. This is the same as the specification skill that makes consultants effective with junior associates — AI just makes the feedback loop faster and the stakes of underspecification more visible.
Source verification discipline: A systematic habit of tracing every specific claim in a research synthesis back to its source before it propagates into a deliverable. This is the professional standard for consulting work that predates AI; AI makes it more important because the volume of claims to verify is higher and the confidence of the output is higher.
Workflow design: Knowing how to structure a multi-step research or analysis task as a sequence of AI-assisted steps, each with a specified output, rather than as a single-prompt request. The better analysts are designing workflows, not just prompts.
Tool landscape awareness: Knowing which tools are being used in the field for specific tasks — research synthesis, financial data extraction, competitive monitoring — and having a framework for evaluating new ones quickly. This is where staying current with the practitioner community matters. The explainx.ai skills registry is a useful resource for this — it surfaces tools and agent skills by actual adoption rather than by marketing, which is a more reliable signal for what is actually being used in real workflows.
For consultants and independent advisors who want to build these skills systematically, the AI Maker Bootcamp provides cohort-based instruction with real-world application built in — useful if you want structured learning alongside peer practitioners rather than self-study.
AI is compressing the part of consulting that was previously differentiated by associate headcount and hours. The research that previously required a four-person team working two weeks can now be assembled in a significantly shorter timeframe by a smaller team using AI-assisted workflows.
What this means for the industry is that the differentiation is moving further toward insight and relationship — the parts that require knowing the client, knowing the domain deeply, and knowing what question to ask. The execution efficiency gains benefit practitioners who invest in the skill, but they narrow the advantage of firms that competed primarily on volume of resources applied.
For individual consultants and analysts, this is a positive development: it means that a practitioner with strong judgment, deep domain expertise, and fluency with AI tools can produce work that previously required a larger team. For firms that competed on associate leverage, the strategic implication is more complicated.
What does not change: the quality of the thinking. AI compresses the mechanical execution. The insight, the recommendation, the ability to navigate organizational politics and help a client think through a difficult decision — that remains the irreducible human work. Build that alongside the AI fluency, and the combination is significant.
More AI-for guides
Broader context
