Manual AI Governance Audit vs Automated Scanning
Compare manual audits with automated scanning. When to use each and what they actually find.
A manual AI governance audit relies on interviews, document reviews, and self-reporting. An automated scan reads OAuth permission grants, DNS records, and breach databases directly — finding shadow AI tools that employees won't mention in interviews and email security issues invisible in document reviews. For UK SMEs, automated scanning is more cost-effective for technical findings; manual review adds value for policy quality, culture assessment, and regulatory interpretation.
What each approach finds
Automated scanning finds: shadow AI tools via OAuth grants, email authentication gaps (SPF/DKIM/DMARC), credential exposure in breach databases, publicly shared files, external surface vulnerabilities.
Manual audit finds: policy gaps, cultural resistance to governance, regulatory interpretation issues, board-level reporting deficiencies, training effectiveness.
Cost comparison
Manual audit: £5,000-£25,000 one-off. Automated scanning: £69-£179/month ongoing. Most SMEs start with automated scanning and add consultancy for specific regulatory questions.
The complementary approach
Use automated scanning for continuous technical monitoring. Add manual review annually or when facing specific regulatory requirements. Governably provides the technical foundation; a consultant provides the strategic interpretation.
Which is better?
Neither alone. Automated finds technical issues; manual assesses policy and culture.
How much does manual cost?
£5,000-£25,000 for UK consultancy audits.
Can automated replace a consultant?
For technical findings yes. For strategic advisory no.
How often should I scan?
Monthly minimum, daily ideal.