AI in Project Delivery: Where It Helps, Where It Hurts

AI can speed up project work, but only with the right guardrails. This guide outlines safe use cases in business cases, reporting and requirements, and explains how to manage accuracy, governance and data security so teams save time without adding risk.

Across the conversations we’re having with project managers and executives, one theme keeps coming up: where does AI actually fit in project management and delivery?

Teams are experimenting in pockets – drafting business cases, generating requirements lists and speeding up reporting. The bigger question is whether those experiments are yielding results, as well as being safe, scalable, and fit to be embedded in ongoing delivery.

As we’ve explored, AI has an Amplified Impact on most aspects of project delivery. It magnifies whatever practices are already in place, for better or for worse. That makes guardrails matter more than ever. Speed without discipline is rarely more efficient in the long term, as it can just as easily create rework, false confidence, or gaps in governance. This article offers some practical answers to the most common questions and concerns we’re hearing at the moment about AI and project delivery.

Why do projects need “AI guardrails”?

AI can handle the mechanics – drafting schedules, assembling SteerCo packs – but without checks, errors can slip through unnoticed. Human oversight is what stops speed from turning into rework. Guardrails ensure the time saved is invested back into delivery, not spent fixing mistakes. Creating these artefacts from scratch once forced project teams to slow down and think carefully; with AI doing the heavy lifting, that reflection now has to be deliberate. Teams need to pause, review and apply critical judgement to AI outputs — or risk missing what really matters.

What should project teams watch for first?

Accuracy has to come first. AI-generated risks or requirements may look polished but still miss what matters. Treat outputs as a first draft, never the final product, and always verify against reliable sources, project data, or expert judgement. The gaps are often obvious to experienced eyes but invisible to less seasoned users, because AI presents everything in a friendly, confident tone. Unlike a colleague, it will not challenge your assumptions. In fact, when we deliberately tested it with poor information and inaccurate prompts, it never corrected us — it simply produced answers based on the flawed input. The lesson is clear: without critical review, AI will reinforce errors rather than surface them.

That conclusion is backed by our recent panel of senior project delivery experts, who discussed how false confidence is one of the biggest risks when AI outputs look complete but lack substance.

How do we make sure outputs are traceable?

A simple trick that should be embedded in your workflows is to ask the tool for references where possible. Some platforms can cite sources or provide links, but many can’t. Where no references are available, validate outputs against trusted project documentation, policies, or governance records. Traceability is essential if AI-produced content is going to be used in steering materials or compliance reporting.

What is the role of prompting?

Think of prompts as project briefs in miniature. A vague prompt will yield vague results. A precise, well-structured prompt will improve the relevance of outputs, whether that is a draft business case, a reporting template, or a set of test scenarios. Encourage your teams to provide context, audience, format and purpose when generating AI output, the same way they would brief a colleague, perhaps more so, given the AI doesn’t share the same experiences you and a colleague will have to draw on.

For example:

• Vague prompt: “Write me a business case for a HR new system that includes people, payroll use cases.”
• Precise prompt: “Draft a two-page business case for an HR payroll system to be presented at a SteerCo meeting. Include: the current problem (manual processes causing errors and delays); the options (continue with manual processing, outsource, or implement a cloud payroll platform); the key risks (cost, change resistance, integration with existing finance systems); and the benefits expected (faster processing, reduced error rate, improved compliance).”

How do we avoid over-reliance on AI?

For all the hype, AI is not replacing project leaders any time soon. Think of it as the assistant, not the project manager. It can draft the pack, but it cannot read the room. It can list generic risks, but it cannot weigh them against organisational culture or a sponsor’s behaviour. It may suggest a standard solution, but it cannot bring the creativity or innovation that specific conditions demand. Human judgement remains essential in reviewing, refining, and deciding what is truly fit for delivery.

Can AI replace governance?

No. AI can help with tasks such as drafting reports, preparing meeting notes, or highlighting data points, but accountability remains human. Governance involves decisions about scope, value and risk appetite. AI can make the inputs faster; it cannot sign off the outputs.

What about sensitive data?

Data security is the one area where project teams can’t afford to be casual. The rule is simple: never put confidential or client-restricted information into a public AI tool. Stick to enterprise-approved platforms such as Microsoft Copilot or Smartsheet’s embedded AI, or anonymise your data before testing.

Some public AI tools frame data sharing as “helping improve the model for everyone else”. It sounds harmless, but in practice you’re giving away your organisation’s information.

This is one guardrail that is non-negotiable. A few minutes saved by using unsecured AI is never worth the risk of exposing sensitive data.

This sounds like a lot to learn and consider. Isn’t AI supposed to make projects faster?

AI can absolutely accelerate delivery. A business case that once took hours can be drafted in a fraction of the time, and a first-cut set of requirements can appear in seconds. The real risk is when speed is mistaken for substance. Without checks, teams can mistake a polished-looking draft for real substance – and that’s where rework creeps in.

Guardrails ensure that the time saved is not lost again in rework but redirected into the higher-value activities that define good delivery: engaging stakeholders, testing assumptions and tackling risks before they grow. Which raises an important question: is faster really the goal for AI in projects? We would argue the better goal is quality — improving the chance of success.

Making AI work for project delivery

AI is already proving its value in project environments, but only when its use is bounded by the right checks. Guardrails make the difference between a fast first draft that accelerates delivery and one that creates rework or risk. With clear purpose and accountability firmly in human hands, AI can reduce the noise of admin and free more time for delivery.

If you’re exploring where AI might lighten the load in your projects, or want to test whether your guardrails are strong enough to support safe adoption, we’re always up for a conversation. Let’s explore it together.

Quay Consulting is a professional services business specialising in the project landscape, transforming strategy into fit-for-purpose delivery. Meet our team or reach out to have a discussion today.

Please share if you’ve found value in our content. If you’re interested in republishing our articles, please, check out our guidelines.