A practical AI governance checklist for RICS-adjacent surveying firms

Important note before reading: This article provides technology governance guidance for surveying practices. It does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. Evocators is not RICS regulated and this article does not represent RICS guidance. Firms with questions about their specific professional obligations under RICS standards should refer directly to RICS published guidance and, where necessary, seek professional advice from a qualified RICS member or regulatory specialist.

---

AI tools are entering surveying workflows — in some cases at pace, often before clear governance is in place. The use cases are varied: drafting survey reports and inspection narratives, summarising research, analysing datasets, processing imagery, and supporting client communication.

The RICS has acknowledged the significance of AI for the profession. In published guidance and emerging standards, RICS recognises that while technology can support professional work, it does not replace professional judgement — and that members retain accountability for the outputs they produce, regardless of the tools used to produce them.

This means that the governance question for surveying firms is not simply "which AI tool should we use?" It is "how do we use AI in a way that upholds our professional obligations, protects client confidentiality and produces outputs we can stand behind?"

This checklist is designed to help practice leaders think through that question systematically.

Section 1: Professional accountability

The starting point for any AI governance framework in a surveying practice is professional accountability. AI tools do not hold professional licences. The member who signs a report, certifies a valuation or provides a professional opinion remains accountable for that output.

Questions to ask:

• Is it clear in every AI-supported workflow where human review occurs and who is responsible for the final output?
• Are staff aware that professional accountability does not transfer to a tool, regardless of how confident the tool's output appears?
• Is there a clear policy on which types of output require sign-off by a qualified and experienced member before they are provided to a client?
• Where AI is used in report drafting, is there a documented review process that confirms the member has read, verified and taken ownership of the content?

Section 2: Client confidentiality

Surveying work regularly involves confidential information: client identity, property details, financial parameters, negotiating positions and commercially sensitive instructions. Many AI tools — particularly general-purpose large language models accessed via consumer or business-tier services — process inputs on external servers, may retain data for model training, and should not be assumed to offer the same confidentiality as secure internal systems.

Questions to ask:

• Does the firm have a clear policy on which AI tools are approved for use, and which types of client data may or may not be processed by them?
• Has the firm reviewed the data processing terms of each AI tool in use, including how inputs are stored, retained and used by the vendor?
• Are staff aware that entering specific client or property details into an unapproved AI tool may be a confidentiality breach?
• Where AI-assisted outputs will reference client-specific information, is processing done in a system with appropriate data processing agreements in place?

Section 3: Accuracy and verification

AI language models can produce outputs that are fluent, plausible and wrong. In surveying contexts — where a factual error in a report, an incorrect calculation or an unsupported valuation conclusion may have significant professional and commercial consequences — the bar for independent verification is high.

Questions to ask:

• Does the firm have clear guidance on which types of AI output require independent verification before use, and what that verification involves?
• Are surveyors aware of the types of error that AI tools commonly produce in their specific work context — factual inaccuracies, hallucinated case law or guidance, incorrect calculations?
• Is there a review step in AI-assisted workflows that is specifically focused on accuracy, not just style or format?
• Where AI is used to generate or support valuations or professional opinions, is the basis for those outputs documented and independently verified?

Section 4: Transparency

There are growing expectations — from clients, from professional bodies and in some cases from regulation — around transparency about the use of AI in professional work. The RICS is actively developing its position on this, as are other professional bodies and regulators. Practices should consider their current position and whether it is appropriate.

Questions to ask:

• Does the firm have a position on whether and how it discloses the use of AI tools to clients?
• Where AI is used in the production of deliverables, is that use documented in the firm's records in a way that would be accessible if a professional conduct question arose?
• Is the firm's approach to AI transparency consistent, rather than varying by individual or by whether it is likely to be noticed?

Section 5: Approved tools and shadow IT

In most practices, AI adoption is already under way — often ahead of formal policy. Staff are using general-purpose AI tools for drafting, research and analysis, sometimes without the firm's knowledge. Governance that pretends this is not happening will not be followed.

Questions to ask:

• Does the firm have a current picture of which AI tools are in use across the practice, including tools that have been adopted informally?
• Is there an approved list of AI tools, and is it maintained and communicated?
• Is the process for requesting approval of a new AI tool clear, accessible and genuinely responsive — so that staff do not bypass it?
• Is the governance framework proportionate? Blanket bans on AI tools that staff find genuinely useful tend to drive usage underground rather than eliminating it.

Section 6: Governance ownership

AI governance is not a one-time policy document. It requires ongoing ownership — someone responsible for maintaining the approved tool list, reviewing it as tools change, updating guidance as professional expectations evolve, and providing a point of contact when staff have questions.

Questions to ask:

• Is there a named individual or role in the practice responsible for AI governance?
• Is that responsibility actively exercised — through regular review, staff communication and updating of guidance — rather than being nominal?
• Does the governance owner have access to independent technology advice when evaluating new tools or updating policy?
• Is AI governance connected to the firm's broader technology strategy and security governance, rather than being treated as a separate exercise?

Building a governance framework

A practical AI governance framework for a surveying practice does not need to be complex. It needs to be honest, proportionate and followed.

The core components are:

1. A clear policy on approved tools and the data that may be processed by them
2. Defined human review requirements for AI-assisted outputs
3. Staff guidance that is accessible, practical and updated as tools evolve
4. A named governance owner with the independence to apply the framework consistently
5. A review cycle — at least annual — that keeps the framework current

Independent technology governance advice can help practices build this framework in a way that is proportionate to their size and risk profile, and that does not create bureaucracy that outweighs the benefit of the tools being governed.

---

Evocators provides independent technology governance advice for UK surveying practices. We help firms adopt AI responsibly — building governance frameworks that are practical, proportionate and professionally defensible. See how we help surveying practices.

RICS members should refer to RICS published guidance on AI and digital technology, which is updated periodically. This article does not substitute for that guidance or for advice from a qualified RICS member on specific regulatory obligations.