AI Policy.
How PCI governs the use of AI — in the credential, and in its own operations.
Overview
AI is part of modern project controls, so PCI treats it as part of the discipline rather than a novelty. This policy sets the overall position: AI may support work, but accountability, integrity and judgement remain human.
At a glance
What the policy covers
- How AI is treated within the body of knowledge
- Responsible use of AI in PCI’s own operations
- Data quality, confidentiality and explainability
- Human oversight and accountability for outputs
The guiding principle
PCI applies this consistently and documents what it does, so the approach can be checked and improved. Final detail is published as the institute matures, and is governed by the related policies below.
Common questions
Does PCI encourage AI use?
Yes — responsibly. AI can support analysis provided a competent professional validates and owns the output.
Can AI decide certification outcomes?
No — decisions are made by people.
Where are the details?
In the responsible-AI framework and AI ethics standard.
Why this matters
This matters because AI is already changing how project controls is done, and the risk is not that professionals use it — it is that they use it without judgement. The whole point of the standard is to make the responsible use of AI explicit: AI proposes, the professional disposes, and a competent human validates, explains and owns every AI-assisted output.
PCI is deliberately careful here. It does not overclaim what AI can do, nor what its own credential guarantees. It sets a clear, honest expectation for governing AI in controls work and certifies professionals against it — keeping accountability where it belongs.
- Substance over marketing
- Fair, transparent process
- Honesty about our status
- Responsible, governed use of AI
Founding-stage document · Version 1.0 — effective date to be confirmed · Reviewed under PCI governance. PCI makes no claims of accreditation or recognition beyond what is true today.
What governed use looks like
AI is already embedded in scheduling, estimating and reporting tools. The policy does not ask professionals to avoid it — it asks them to use it in a way that keeps a named person answerable for every number that reaches a decision-maker. In day-to-day work, that discipline comes down to six habits.
Disclose
Say where AI has materially shaped an output — a forecast, an estimate, a narrative — so reviewers can weigh it properly.
Validate
Check AI output against source data and known project behaviour before it enters a report. Plausible is not the same as correct.
Own the outcome
The professional who issues the figure answers for it. “The model said so” is never a defence.
Protect the data
Cost, schedule and commercial data goes only into tools the organisation has approved for that purpose.
Keep proportion
The higher the stakes of the decision, the more scrutiny the AI contribution receives before anyone relies on it.
Keep a trail
Retain enough of the working to explain later how a figure was produced and checked.
How this policy connects
This policy sets PCI's overall position; the detail lives in companion documents. The AI Standard defines the competence expectations the PCI examinations assess — what a certified professional must actually be able to do when working with AI. The Responsible AI Framework turns the position into operating principles, and Human Oversight explains how PCI keeps people accountable for decisions inside its own operations, including certification decisions.
Read together, they answer the question each audience brings: candidates learn what will be assessed, employers learn what a credential-holder has committed to, and the public sees PCI applying to itself the same discipline it expects of professionals.
Frequently asked
Does the policy prohibit using AI?
No. It requires that use is disclosed, validated and owned by an accountable professional. Prohibition would be as careless as blind adoption — the discipline lies in governed use.
Does it apply during the examination?
Exam conditions are stricter: only what the examination rules expressly permit may be used during a sitting. This policy governs professional practice; the exam rules govern the exam.
Will the policy change over time?
Yes. It is reviewed as tools and practice evolve, and the version published on this page is the version in force.
Keep going
Where AI is welcome, bounded, and barred
Welcome: analysis support, drafting, pattern-finding, scenario generation — wherever a professional verifies and owns the result. Bounded: any use touching candidate data or certification records, which must satisfy the data-protection and security policies first. Barred: AI as the decider of certification outcomes; humans decide, with reasons that can be examined.
The same frame is what PCL-AI examines in candidates, because it is the frame employers now need: capability with governance, not capability instead of it. See the AI decision policy and human oversight for the load-bearing detail.