AI Is Changing the Work Inside Aviation Jobs: What Employers and Aviation Professionals Need to Do Now
Artificial intelligence is arriving in aviation at the same time as the industry continues to compete for experienced pilots, engineers, technicians, operations specialists, planners and other qualified professionals. That combination matters because AI should not be viewed simply as another technology programme running alongside the workforce challenge. It is beginning to change the work people perform, the experience through which they become competent, the skills employers need to recruit and the way aviation professionals should think about developing their careers.
The most useful question is therefore not whether AI will replace aviation jobs. That framing is too simplistic for a safety-critical industry in which professional competence, regulatory accountability, human judgement and the ability to intervene remain fundamental. A better question is how work will be divided between people and increasingly capable technology, and what aviation must do to ensure greater machine capability strengthens rather than weakens human capability.
Published: 16 October 2026
Written by: Todd Skaggs
For employers, this means understanding the future role before rewriting the headcount plan. For professionals, it means learning how intelligent tools can extend aviation expertise without becoming a substitute for that expertise. For recruiters and training organisations, it means recognising that familiar job titles and qualifications may increasingly conceal very different levels of actual capability.
How Is AI Already Changing Aviation Work?
Most aviation occupations are collections of many different tasks. An aircraft maintenance professional might inspect components, diagnose faults, interpret maintenance history, search technical information, document work, communicate findings and exercise regulated technical judgement. An operations controller might monitor the network, compare recovery options, coordinate different functions, understand crew limitations and decide which intervention produces the least damaging overall result.
Artificial intelligence does not need to remove either occupation to change both significantly. It can potentially make information retrieval faster, identify patterns humans might take longer to recognise, rank alternative actions, summarise complex documentation and help professionals examine more possibilities than would previously have been practical. Other activities still require qualified authority, physical intervention, contextual judgement, communication and responsibility for the eventual action.
The immediate workforce issue is therefore more about task redistribution than occupational replacement. Some activities may require less human time, others may become more important, and entirely new responsibilities around verification, oversight and challenge may emerge. The organisation that understands those changes early should be better placed to recruit, train and retain the people its future operation actually requires.
Aviation Should Treat AI as a Capability Multiplier, Not a Headcount Strategy
There will inevitably be financial pressure to convert technology investment into measurable productivity, and in some areas the amount of human effort required for particular activities may fall. That does not mean the most intelligent starting point is deciding how many jobs can be removed.
The safer and strategically stronger sequence is to understand the work first. Which activities can technology assist? Which can it significantly augment? Which outputs still require qualified human verification? Which capabilities must aviation deliberately preserve because they become essential when data are incomplete, systems are unavailable or circumstances fall outside the technology's assumptions?
Only after those questions have been answered should management decide what the redesigned role means for workforce size. Beginning with a headcount target risks fitting the organisation around the technology rather than determining how technology can strengthen the organisation.
Aviation's objective should not be maximum automation. It should be the right allocation of work between humans and machines while maintaining the competence, accountability and resilience required for safe operations.
Every Aviation Task Has a Production Value and a Development Value
One of the biggest risks in the AI workforce debate is that organisations evaluate work only by what it produces today.
A relatively routine aircraft defect has an obvious production value because somebody needs to investigate and resolve it. Yet the same task can also have developmental value because the engineer working through it learns about systems, documentation, fault patterns, troubleshooting logic and the circumstances in which an obvious explanation turns out to be wrong.
The same pattern exists throughout aviation. Ordinary disruptions help operations professionals develop the judgement required for severe disruptions. Routine planning decisions help employees understand how one change propagates through an airline. Repeated exposure to normal operations provides the context that eventually allows experienced people to recognise when something is no longer normal.
Artificial intelligence can make some of those activities considerably faster. The danger is that an organisation may remove the production work without realising it has also removed part of the pathway through which future expertise is developed.
Before automating a significant task, aviation organisations should therefore ask two questions. How much value comes from completing this activity efficiently today, and how much value comes from the experience employees gain by performing it?
That distinction could become fundamental to future workforce planning.
Could Aviation Accidentally Automate Part of Its Apprenticeship?
The possibility is particularly important in occupations where genuine expertise develops over many years.
A senior engineer who recognises an unusual technical pattern has usually accumulated that judgement through repeated exposure to ordinary and extraordinary defects. An experienced operations controller can often anticipate how disruption will propagate because that person has seen smaller versions of the same problem many times. A training captain, instructor or specialist does not acquire professional judgement from one course alone.
If intelligent systems increasingly perform the routine analytical work beneath those senior professionals, productivity can rise considerably. One experienced employee may be able to supervise, interpret or complete far more work than previously.
The longer-term question is what happens to the people developing underneath them.
If fewer junior positions are required because technology absorbs much of the work historically performed at that level, the organisation may eventually discover that it has also narrowed the route through which future senior people emerge. The immediate financial result can look excellent while the future capability problem remains invisible for years.
AI could therefore make scarce experts more productive while simultaneously increasing the importance of ensuring enough people still develop into experts.
That is not a reason to resist the technology. It is a reason to redesign development at the same time as the work.
How Is AI Changing Aircraft Maintenance?
Aircraft maintenance offers one of the clearest examples of the opportunity and the challenge.
Digital maintenance platforms, predictive analytics and condition-monitoring technologies already help organisations identify emerging technical issues and plan work more effectively. Lufthansa Technik has invested extensively in digital maintenance capability, while major airline groups including Air France-KLM are exploring generative AI applications that can improve access to engineering and maintenance information.
The productivity case is persuasive. Technical professionals can spend considerable time searching manuals, reviewing previous defects, retrieving records and reconciling information spread across multiple systems. Technology capable of locating relevant information quickly can release more time for productive technical work and help experienced engineers investigate a larger volume of issues.
However, finding an answer and developing expertise are not the same process. An AI system may direct a junior professional towards the likely cause of a defect much faster than traditional troubleshooting, but speed can remove part of the reasoning journey through which experience was previously accumulated.
AI can potentially retrieve accumulated experience without necessarily creating equivalent experience in the person using it.
Maintenance organisations may therefore need to increase the use of structured troubleshooting scenarios, mentoring, simulation and deliberate discussion of alternative hypotheses. If developing engineers encounter fewer complex diagnostic journeys naturally, employers may need to create more of those learning opportunities deliberately.
The technology that removes part of the traditional apprenticeship could also help build its replacement.
How Is AI Changing Airline and Flight Operations?
Airline operations is already demonstrating how jobs can evolve without becoming unnecessary.
SWISS has developed an Operations Decision Support Suite with Google Cloud that combines information involving aircraft rotations, crews, passengers and technical considerations. The technology can analyse potential operating scenarios and help controllers identify opportunities that would be difficult to calculate manually across the whole network.
Cathay Pacific has also been developing AI-supported operational decision tools with BCG and KLM, bringing together considerations involving customers, crew, cargo, aircraft and wider network performance. More than 15 teams and around 60 subject-matter experts have reportedly been involved in the programme, reflecting an important point: effective AI in aviation is not simply a software implementation but a combination of technology and deep operational knowledge.
Alaska Airlines has used AI-supported route optimisation to help dispatchers and pilots identify more efficient flight paths while retaining professional responsibility for whether recommendations are accepted. The pattern across these examples is consistent. Technology can generate or evaluate options rapidly, while qualified people remain responsible for understanding whether those options make sense within the actual operation.
Flight operations requires particular care because aviation already has decades of experience managing sophisticated automation. AI may increasingly assist with planning, information analysis, weather interpretation, documentation and other activities, but the underlying principle remains familiar: technology should support professional capability without obscuring responsibility or allowing underlying competence to deteriorate.
The future professional may therefore spend less time producing options and more time evaluating them.
The Most Valuable Employee May Be the One Who Knows When to Disagree
As intelligent systems become more reliable, an important human capability could become harder rather than easier to maintain.
Imagine a system that produces an appropriate recommendation almost every time. Repeated success encourages trust, which is useful until the circumstances fall outside the model's assumptions or the available information is incomplete. At that moment, the organisation needs a professional with enough underlying domain knowledge to recognise that the apparently intelligent answer does not fit reality.
An engineer may need to recognise that an AI-supported diagnosis is inconsistent with physical evidence. An operations controller may determine that the mathematically efficient recovery option creates a serious downstream consequence that the system has undervalued. A planner may realise that a forecast depends upon an assumption that has already changed.
This suggests that future aviation professionals will increasingly need two forms of competence. They need deep aviation knowledge, and they need the ability to use, interrogate and challenge intelligent systems.
Neither is particularly useful without the other.
Digital fluency without sufficient aviation expertise risks creating excessive dependence on the tool. Deep technical experience accompanied by an inability to use increasingly important technology could eventually restrict productivity and career mobility.
The strongest future candidates may be those who can combine both.
AI Could Move the Skills Shortage Rather Than Remove It
Artificial intelligence is frequently discussed as a possible response to workforce scarcity, and in some areas it may allow organisations to handle increasing volumes of work without equivalent increases in staffing. The conclusion that this automatically solves the skills problem would be premature.
The bottleneck may simply move higher up the experience pyramid.
If technology performs more routine analysis, information retrieval and planning, the organisation may require fewer human hours producing information but depend more heavily on people capable of interpreting, verifying and authorising the resulting output.
Those employees are usually not the easiest people to recruit.
An airline could therefore experience fewer vacancies overall while facing even stronger competition for the smaller population possessing the precise combination of deep domain expertise, regulatory authority, digital confidence and professional judgement required by the redesigned operation.
For recruiters and workforce planners, aggregate employee numbers could consequently become less informative. Understanding the distribution of capability may matter more than understanding the size of the workforce alone.
The Same Job Title Could Hide Very Different Experience
This creates a substantial recruitment challenge.
Two candidates can hold similar licences, possess comparable years of experience and present almost identical job titles while having performed very different versions of the same occupation.
One maintenance professional may have worked for several years inside a digitally mature environment involving predictive maintenance, integrated technical systems and AI-supported information retrieval. Another may have accumulated more experience diagnosing similar problems through conventional methods and independent troubleshooting.
One operations candidate may be accustomed to decision-support and optimisation systems, while another has spent years manually constructing recovery options and coordinating information across functions.
Neither candidate is automatically stronger.
The first may adapt quickly to a technology-enabled operation. The second may possess valuable unaided reasoning and a deeper understanding of the processes that automation now hides.
Recruitment therefore needs to ask a more revealing question than, "How many years have you done the job?"
Employers increasingly need to understand, "What version of the job have you actually been doing?"
For aviation employers, this means recruitment decisions increasingly need to focus on demonstrated capability, operational judgement and experience working alongside technology, rather than relying solely on traditional indicators such as job titles and years of service.
Aviation Recruitment Needs to Move Towards Capability Mapping
Formal credentials will remain fundamental. Aviation is regulated for good reason, and licences, approvals, aircraft types, recency, training records and operational experience cannot simply be replaced by generic descriptions of talent.
What will change is the information employers require around those credentials.
A conventional CV may show that a person spent seven years as an operations controller but reveal very little about the decisions they personally made, the systems supporting them, the degree of automation within the operation or how they responded when those systems produced questionable results.
The same applies in maintenance, planning, engineering and many other functions.
Recruitment therefore needs to understand not simply the title a person held but the capability developed beneath it. That means exploring the problems somebody solved, the degree of responsibility they carried, the technology they used, the circumstances in which they exercised judgement and what they could still do if the technology were unavailable.
That is capability mapping rather than simple credential matching.
For specialist aviation recruiters, this creates a broader role. Recruitment partners working across different employers and markets can see skills beginning to emerge before one individual company necessarily recognises a trend. They can also identify where a future operating model assumes that certain people will be available even though the talent market suggests otherwise.
Recruitment intelligence therefore belongs earlier in workforce and technology planning, not only after a vacancy has been approved.
Be Careful With “AI Experience Required”
One predictable response to this transition will be the appearance of "AI experience" in job specifications.
Used without greater precision, the phrase will tell employers very little.
The ability to open a generative AI application or use a digital assistant does not demonstrate meaningful capability. Employers need to understand what candidates have actually achieved with intelligent tools and whether technology strengthened or merely substituted for their reasoning.
A stronger interview might explore how a professional used AI or advanced analytics to improve planning, retrieve information, investigate a problem or make a better operational decision. It might also ask how the output was verified, whether the candidate has encountered occasions where technology was incomplete or misleading and how they would work if the system became unavailable.
The recruitment signal then becomes much stronger than "I have used AI".
It becomes: "I know how to create value with intelligent technology without surrendering professional judgement to it."
That could become a highly valuable differentiator in future aviation recruitment.
Aviation Professionals Should Treat AI as Career Capital
The workforce is not a passive participant in this transformation.
Pilots, engineers, technicians, planners, recruiters, dispatchers and operations specialists can begin preparing long before their employer formally redesigns the job. The most useful response is neither resistance nor the assumption that everybody needs to become an AI specialist.
For most aviation professionals, applied AI literacy will matter more than understanding how to build a machine-learning model. Employees need to understand which technologies are entering their profession, where those tools genuinely improve work, how outputs should be verified and where company policy, data security, confidentiality or regulatory requirements restrict their use.
Professionals should then combine that knowledge with deeper domain expertise rather than treating one as a substitute for the other.
An engineer who understands intelligent diagnostic tools and possesses excellent technical judgement should be more useful than somebody possessing only one of those capabilities. An operations professional who can use optimisation technology while understanding why the apparently best mathematical solution might damage tomorrow's operation can become more valuable because the technology exists, not despite it.
The career question should therefore not simply be, "Can AI do part of my job?"
A more useful question is, "What can I learn to do with AI that makes my aviation expertise more valuable?"
AI Can Be Used to Avoid Learning or Accelerate It
The way professionals use artificial intelligence will also influence whether it strengthens or weakens future competence.
Someone can ask an AI system for an answer, copy the result and avoid much of the reasoning that would previously have been required. Repeated over time, that approach could weaken learning because the technology is functioning as a substitute for thought.
The same technology can be used very differently. A professional can ask the system to explain alternative possibilities, challenge a proposed conclusion, generate scenarios, identify missing information or test understanding. Used within appropriate company and regulatory boundaries, AI can become a tool for practising reasoning rather than bypassing it.
The distinction matters enormously for aviation.
The objective should not be creating employees who are exceptionally good at obtaining answers from machines. It should be creating professionals capable of using intelligent systems to expand their knowledge while retaining enough independent understanding to challenge those systems when necessary.
AI can shorten a learning journey, but aviation needs to ensure it does not hollow the journey out.
AI Could Create New Opportunities for Aviation Training
The same technology that may remove some traditional learning experiences can also create new ones.
Training has always faced practical constraints. Instructor availability, course duration, simulator capacity and the difficulty of exposing every employee to enough unusual scenarios all affect how much developmental experience can be created formally.
Intelligent technology could potentially support more personalised learning around those existing systems. A developing maintenance professional could encounter progressively more complicated troubleshooting exercises in which the obvious explanation is deliberately wrong. An operations controller could work through a disruption that evolves as new information becomes available, while a manager might practise balancing operational, commercial, workforce and safety consequences.
In safety-critical and regulated occupations, such tools should supplement rather than bypass approved instruction, qualified trainers and validated competence assessment. Their value lies in increasing the variety and frequency of developmental exposure around formal training.
If AI reduces the number of routine problems people encounter naturally, simulation and structured learning may become more important, not less.
The Technology Timeline and the People Timeline Are Different
This is an issue senior leadership needs to recognise early.
A company can sometimes deploy new software within months. It cannot create a highly experienced engineer, captain, instructor, technical authority or operational leader on the same timetable.
That creates an important mismatch between technology transformation and workforce transformation.
Before implementing a major AI or automation system, organisations should understand what work will change, what new capability will be required, which existing employees can be developed and where additional people will need to be recruited externally. They should also establish whether those people actually exist in the labour market and how long they will take to become fully productive.
A technically elegant operating model can still fail if it assumes access to capabilities that are scarce, geographically unavailable, regulatorily constrained or being pursued simultaneously by competitors.
Technology strategy therefore needs workforce intelligence much earlier than many organisations currently provide it.
The question is not simply whether the technology can be implemented.
It is whether the workforce required to use it effectively can be built.
Employers Should Redesign Jobs Before Redesigning Headcount
If an AI initiative produces significant productivity improvement, organisations have several choices about what to do with the capacity released.
Some may become lower cost. Some could support growth without equivalent recruitment. Some may strengthen resilience, reduce overtime, improve customer service or enable more experienced people to spend time training developing colleagues.
Those outcomes are not equivalent.
LATAM's broader digital transformation provides an interesting example of the possibilities. Advanced planning and predictive capabilities in maintenance reportedly released more than 1,400 additional aircraft days, an amount described as roughly equivalent to adding several aircraft without purchasing them.
That type of improvement demonstrates that technology can unlock productive capacity already inside the organisation.
The workforce question is what management chooses to do with the resulting dividend.
If AI gives a company thousands of employee hours back, should they all become a cost reduction? Could some improve resilience? Should part of the capacity be reinvested in training, mentoring, preventative activity or improvement work?
The machine creates the productivity opportunity.
Leadership decides how that opportunity is used.
Aviation Should Decide Which Human Capabilities It Intends to Preserve
One practical way of managing this transition is to divide work into four broad categories: Assist, Augment, Verify and Preserve.
Assist covers work where intelligent tools help employees perform routine or information-intensive activities more efficiently. Augment applies where technology materially increases the reach or analytical capability of the professional while human judgement remains integral to the work.
Verify covers situations where technology can produce analysis or recommendations but an appropriately qualified person must still understand, challenge or approve the result. Preserve applies to human capabilities that should continue to be practised even where technology can normally perform or assist with the task because the organisation cannot afford for that competence to disappear.
The Preserve category may become one of the most important.
A capability can look inefficient when intelligent technology performs the activity reliably every day. Its value becomes visible on the day the information is incomplete, the technology is unavailable or circumstances fall outside what the system was designed to understand.
Aviation should therefore not judge AI success solely by how much human activity is removed.
A stronger measure is whether the technology improves performance while preserving the human competence required when normal assumptions no longer hold.
Senior Leaders Should Stress-Test the Future Workforce
There is a practical exercise aviation companies can perform now.
Choose a critical occupation and assume the technology programme works exactly as management hopes. Productivity increases by 20% or 30%, routine activity falls substantially and experienced professionals can handle more work.
Then run the workforce forward five and ten years.
How many people are developing towards senior positions? What operational exposure are they receiving? Who becomes the instructor, examiner, licensed specialist or technical authority when today's experts leave? Are people still acquiring enough unaided knowledge to recognise when the intelligent system is wrong?
This is not resistance to productivity.
It is a test of whether today's efficiency creates tomorrow's capability gap.
Airlines routinely forecast aircraft requirements years into the future because aircraft have long procurement and delivery cycles. Critical human capability with similarly long development times should be modelled with comparable discipline.
Aviation Professionals Should Stress-Test Their Own Careers Too
Employees can perform the same exercise personally.
Look at the work you do today and identify which activities are most likely to become easier through intelligent technology. Then ask which parts of your contribution remain valuable when information gathering, basic analysis or repetitive administration require considerably less human effort.
For many aviation professionals, the answer will include technical depth, judgement, communication, leadership, troubleshooting, systems thinking, exception management and the ability to connect one part of an operation to another.
Those capabilities do not necessarily become less important as AI improves.
They may become more important precisely because routine output becomes cheaper.
Professionals should also consider whether their employer is giving them enough exposure to emerging technology and meaningful development. Candidates already evaluate potential jobs partly through aircraft type, training opportunity, progression and operational environment. Digital maturity may eventually become another part of that calculation.
A growing number of professionals may reasonably ask whether a particular role will make them more or less employable five years later.
Technology can therefore become part of the employee value proposition as well as a productivity investment.
The Industry Needs Better Bridges Between Generations
The AI transition should not become a choice between digitally confident younger employees and experienced professionals with deep operational knowledge.
Aviation needs both.
A younger engineer may adopt new tools quickly but lack years of technical judgement. A highly experienced engineer may recognise patterns almost instinctively while needing more support to become comfortable inside a heavily AI-enabled workflow.
Strong employers can make those differences complementary rather than competitive.
Reverse mentoring is one possibility. Digitally confident employees can help experienced colleagues understand new tools while senior professionals transfer technical knowledge, professional judgement and operational context in the opposite direction.
Mixed-experience teams can also improve technology implementation itself. Systems designed without enough input from people who understand how the work behaves in real conditions are likely to solve a simplified version of the problem.
The objective should not be replacing one generation of competence with another.
It should be combining their strengths before either becomes a constraint.
What Should Aviation Employers Do Now?
Employers do not need to wait until artificial intelligence has transformed an entire department before taking action.
The first step is to identify roles where the work is already changing and examine the tasks inside them. Which activities are becoming assisted or automated? Which are increasing in importance? Which currently provide developmental experience, and what new capabilities will the future role require?
Job specifications should then be rebuilt around that future work rather than simply copied from previous vacancies. Existing employees should be considered for development before management assumes all new capability must be recruited externally, while specialist recruiters can test whether the external labour market genuinely contains the combinations of skills the organisation expects to hire.
Training should address more than how to operate the technology. It should preserve underlying professional competence, create opportunities to challenge automated recommendations and replace developmental experiences that disappear from normal work.
The final question should be headcount.
That sequence turns AI workforce planning from an IT implementation project into organisational design.
What Should Aviation Professionals Do Now?
For applicants and existing employees, the strongest strategy is to build on aviation expertise rather than abandoning it in pursuit of generic technology knowledge.
Understand how intelligent tools are beginning to affect your occupation. Learn approved systems properly, understand what information they use and develop the confidence to question their output where appropriate. At the same time, continue deepening the underlying technical and operational knowledge that allows you to recognise when the technology does not understand the complete situation.
Professionals should also become better at describing capability rather than simply experience.
A future employer may learn more from hearing how somebody solved a difficult problem, challenged a recommendation, improved a workflow, introduced technology responsibly or trained colleagues than from knowing only how many years the candidate spent in a particular position.
The aviation CV of the future may therefore need to explain not only where somebody worked but what kind of problems they were trusted to solve.
The New Aviation Workforce Is Already Forming
Artificial intelligence is unlikely to change aviation employment through one dramatic moment in which humans disappear and machines take over. The more credible transition is already happening more gradually as individual tasks move between people and technology, roles evolve around those changes and organisations discover that some existing recruitment and development assumptions no longer fit the work.
That creates responsibilities across the industry.
Employers need to understand how jobs are changing before vacancies expose the gap. Training organisations need to consider how professionals will acquire experience when technology increasingly handles routine work. Recruiters need to see beyond titles and credentials to understand the actual capabilities available in the market, while aviation professionals need to recognise where AI can extend their expertise and where deeper human competence will become more valuable.
The industry should also remain careful about what it chooses to automate. Aviation's caution around new technology is not necessarily a weakness or resistance to innovation. In a safety-critical environment, every new capability raises legitimate questions about verification, failure modes, accountability, degraded operation and whether people remain capable of intervening when the system behaves unexpectedly.
The opportunity is therefore not to employ fewer capable people simply because technology has become more capable.
It is to make capable people more effective while continuing to create the experience, judgement and accountability on which safe aviation depends.
For employers, that means designing the future job before designing the future headcount. For professionals, it means treating AI as a tool that can increase the value of aviation expertise rather than as a substitute for acquiring that expertise. For recruiters, it means helping both sides understand where the work is moving before the market discovers the gap for them.
The aviation workforce of the future will not be defined simply by what machines can do.
It will be defined by what people can do better because those machines exist, what humans must still know when technology reaches its limits, and whether the industry acts early enough to bring those two capabilities together.
That workforce is already beginning to form.
The companies and professionals that understand it first should be in the strongest position to benefit from it.
Key Facts
Artificial intelligence is beginning to change many aviation roles through task redistribution rather than outright job replacement.
Employers should assess which activities can be assisted, augmented, verified or preserved before redesigning workforce structures.
Routine work often has developmental value because it helps future professionals build expertise and judgement.
AI may improve productivity while simultaneously reducing some traditional pathways through which experience is gained.
Future aviation professionals are likely to require both deep aviation knowledge and the ability to work with intelligent systems.
Recruitment is increasingly moving towards capability mapping rather than relying solely on job titles, qualifications and years of experience.
The most valuable employees may be those who can both use AI effectively and recognise when its recommendations are wrong.
Technology strategies should be aligned with workforce planning because software can be deployed much faster than experienced aviation professionals can be developed.
Organisations should redesign future roles before making headcount decisions.
Aviation's long-term challenge is not simply adopting AI, but preserving the human expertise required when technology reaches its limits.
Related Articles
Planning growth, fleet changes or seasonal operations in 2026? Contact Brookfield to discuss your staffing and consultancy needs. Email: info@brookfieldav.com
Explore our full range of recruitment services, connecting aviation businesses with skilled pilots, aircraft engineers and industry professionals worldwide.
Author: Todd Skaggs Aviation staffing and consultancy insights LinkedIn
