What should you ask before signing an AI contract?
What exactly you can take with you, in what format, and whether anybody has tested that the export works. More than one export function exists on paper and produces something unusable.
Blog
The hidden cost of vendor-led advice
More than any single bad project. People recommend what they know how to do, so a supplier's advice is usually sincere and, structurally, not independent. The larger costs are quiet: the question nobody asked, the option you were never shown, scope that grows because nobody measures it, and dependency on one supplier's system, which AI contracts are making sharper. Before trusting a recommendation, ask what the person giving it would have to say, against their own interest, for you to know they were being straight with you.
Where does the cost of supplier advice actually sit?
Mostly where nobody looks. An agency that builds websites will tend to find that you need a website. That describes how expertise works: people recommend what they know how to do, they know it because they have done it many times, and they have done it many times because they are good at it. I spent two decades running a digital agency, so I have given this kind of advice as well as received it, and I do not remember anyone setting out to mislead a client. I remember plenty of answers shaped by the shape of the business giving them.
The obvious cost is the unnecessary project, a rebuild bought when a fix was needed. The larger costs are quieter.
The question that never got asked. A supplier engaged to solve a problem will solve that problem. It is much less likely to ask whether the problem is worth solving, whether it is a symptom of something upstream, or whether the organisation would be better off doing nothing this year.
The option that was never on the table. You get a choice between the three things the supplier does. The fourth, which might have been right, was never mentioned because they do not do it, and you cannot evaluate an option you were not shown.
The scope that grew because nobody measured it. Over a long contract, where one party knows the craft and the other does not, effort drifts upward. Nobody on either side has a reason to question it, and everyone stays friendly throughout.
The dependency nobody priced. This is the largest, and it is growing.
Why has AI made supplier dependency riskier?
Because every organisation signing an AI contract this year is making a portability decision, and most do not know it. Traditional lock-in was about data: painful, broadly understood, and there was usually an export button. Now a team's accumulated knowledge, processes, customer history and institutional memory end up inside one supplier's system, in a form that only makes sense there. The question becomes what your negotiating position looks like in three years, when the pricing changes and you have nowhere to go.
The advice about this nearly always comes from somebody selling one of the tools, because that is where the expertise currently sits. So ask before you sign: what exactly can we take with us, in what format, and has anybody tested that the export works? I have seen more than one export function that technically existed and produced something unusable.
How can you tell whether advice is independent?
Ask one question, quietly, about whoever is advising you: what would this person have to say, against their own interest, for you to know they were being straight with you? If no such sentence exists in their commercial position, you are receiving a proposal rather than advice. That is legitimate, and it should be evaluated as a proposal.
A good supplier can pass the test. Some of the best people I worked with in agency life would tell a client to spend less, to wait, or to fix the thing themselves. It cost revenue and won relationships that lasted years, but it was a choice made against the grain of the business, and governance cannot rest on assuming every supplier will make it.
Independence is a structural condition, and it can be checked with factual questions. Does this person sell software? Hold reseller agreements? Take commission from a platform? Have an implementation team to fill next quarter? Anybody who bristles at being asked has told you something.
Does this mean suppliers are the problem?
No. Most of the good work I have seen was delivered by agencies and vendors who knew their craft far better than the client ever would, and doing everything in-house is usually worse and always slower. Nor does every decision need an independent adviser: most are small enough that the cost of scrutiny exceeds the risk.
How do I keep my own advice independent?
I have no software to sell, no reseller agreements, no platform commissions and no delivery team to keep occupied, and that is the basis of how I work. I do sometimes deliver focused pieces of work, so the same question applies to me, and I hold to a rule: I will not automatically accept delivery work that follows from a recommendation I was paid to make. If it goes ahead, the client has been shown reasonable alternatives, the distinction between advice and delivery is explicit, they understand the potential conflict, they choose, and the decision is recorded in writing.
If you rely on a supplier for advice about that supplier's own work, an independent supplier review gives you an objective view of what you are getting and what it is worth.
Related evidence: How a mid size regional UK law firm grew online enquiries by 190% without rebuilding their website. Earlier in this journey: The consultant who tells you what not to buy.
Questions people ask
Why do supplier contracts tend to grow?
Because in a long relationship where one side knows the craft and the other does not, effort drifts upward. Nobody on either side has a reason to question it, and everyone stays friendly throughout.
Not sure where to start?
Most clients begin with a conversation. No pitch, no hard sell.
Just a straightforward discussion about where you are and whether I can help.
Book a free 30-minute call