AI & Events, Part 2: What Should an Organiser Ask AI to Do?

An organiser does not need an AI strategy for every part of an event at once. A more useful question is: which recurring decision takes too long because the relevant information is scattered?

The first article in our AI & Events series looked at three perspectives: organisers, PCOs and MICE teams, and attendees. This second part stays with the organiser. Its focus is setting priorities, shaping a programme and deciding whether an event met its purpose.

Start with a decision, not a tool

Suppose registrations for a congress are slower than expected. The team might ask an AI tool to write more promotional copy. But the useful first step is to identify the decision: is the problem reach, the audience’s understanding of the programme, price, timing or something else?

Gather the information the team is allowed to use: registration trends, approved audience segments, previous-event feedback, current programme details and the messages already sent. Ask for a structured comparison and the evidence behind each possible explanation. The output should say where the evidence is weak. It should not present a guess as a diagnosis.

That makes AI an aid to an organiser’s discussion. The organiser still decides whether to change the programme, clarify the invitation or wait for more information.

Turn feedback into questions the programme committee can answer

Open-text feedback is valuable and difficult to read at scale. An AI-assisted first pass can group comments about session depth, practical relevance, networking time or accessibility. For each theme, it should retain links to the original comments and count responses carefully.

The committee can then ask: which issues appeared repeatedly, which were serious even if mentioned once, and which relate to the event’s purpose? A short cluster of comments is not automatically a representative sample. A persuasive summary can hide disagreement, so reviewers should examine examples that support and challenge each theme.

A useful result is not “the AI says delegates want shorter talks.” It is a reviewable note: “Several respondents described the late-afternoon sessions as too compressed; here are the comments, the number of distinct respondents and questions for the committee.”

Stress-test the programme before it is published

The organiser can also use AI to compare a draft programme with explicit goals. If the event promises introductory learning and advanced practice, does each audience have a coherent route through the day? Are closely related sessions scheduled against each other? Are speakers repeatedly assigned to overlapping slots?

This only works with a current version of the programme. Label drafts clearly and specify which version is approved. Ask the tool to flag potential conflicts and explain its reasoning. Let the programme team resolve the trade-offs; a clash may be intentional because two sessions serve different audiences.

The same review can test the information participants will see. If the event page says one start time and the draft email says another, the discrepancy should be surfaced before either is published.

Measure the work around the output

Choose one task for a small trial. Record the time it takes without AI, then include preparation, checking and corrections in the AI-assisted version. Track factual errors, unsupported claims and whether the output changes a real decision. If the team spends more time repairing a summary than it saves, the process needs to change or stop.

Do not feed participant records, unpublished abstracts or confidential partner material into a tool merely because the task would be convenient. Establish permissions and an appropriate information-handling process first. A smaller, well-defined input is often enough to test whether the idea is useful.

The most productive role for AI is to make the evidence easier to inspect. It can compare, organise and draft. The organiser owns the event’s aims, the decisions and the consequences.

Try this first: Choose one programme or feedback question for the next planning meeting. Give the tool approved source material, request a short evidence-linked brief, and have the responsible person mark every correction. If that brief leads to a clearer decision with less total work, you have found a useful place to continue.

Next in the series: how PCO and MICE teams can keep changes, suppliers and handovers aligned.