.svg)
For years, manual contract review has been the default across colleges and universities. Vendor agreements, software licenses, professional services contracts, and research-adjacent agreements all move through similar review paths. One document. One reviewer. One set of redlines at a time.
In 2026, that default is starting to break down.
Legal and procurement teams are not questioning the importance of contract review. They are questioning whether a fully manual approach still makes sense given the volume, complexity, and pace of modern higher education operations.
Manual Review Has Become a Bottleneck of Our Own Making
Contract volume in higher education has grown steadily over the past decade. Decentralized purchasing, widespread SaaS adoption, auxiliary services, sponsored research, and external partnerships all drive more agreements through procurement and legal teams than ever before.
Procurement often feels this pressure first. It sits at the intersection of campus urgency, institutional policy, and legal review, absorbing demand from departments that need agreements turned quickly while still enforcing standards consistently across the institution.
When every contract is reviewed line by line, by hand, cycle times slow and backlogs form. Procurement becomes the constraint, even when vendors are ready and departments are pushing for quick turnaround.
The result is a familiar pattern. Teams spend disproportionate time on low-risk, repeat agreements while complex negotiations and true exceptions wait. Manual review does not scale well, and in 2026, scale is no longer optional.
AI Review Tools Have Reached a Trust Threshold
Skepticism toward automated contract review was warranted for a long time. Early tools were rigid, shallow, or disconnected from how legal teams actually work. They promised efficiency but delivered frustration.
That has changed.
Modern AI review tools, particularly those designed for legal workflows and embedded directly in Microsoft Word, operate very differently. They do not replace judgment. They assist it.
These tools can apply institutional playbooks consistently, redline clauses with context, and explain why a recommendation is being made. Instead of forcing teams to trust a black box, they make review more transparent and repeatable.
Trust has not grown because of hype. It has grown because the tools are accurate, predictable, and grounded in how contracts are actually reviewed.
Manual Review Introduces Risk, Not Just Cost
Manual review often feels safer because it is familiar. In practice, it carries its own risks.
Under time pressure, reviewers miss things. Fallback positions are applied inconsistently. Defined terms slip through. Numbering errors go unnoticed. Subtle indemnity or data-use language hides in sections no one expects.
These are not edge cases. They are the cumulative result of humans doing repetitive work at speed.
AI does not eliminate risk, but it does something humans cannot. It applies the same rules the same way every time. It does not get tired. It does not skip steps. It flags issues consistently, even in the tenth agreement reviewed that day.
For institutions of higher education, consistency is not a nice-to-have. It is foundational to governance, compliance, and institutional accountability across decentralized departments.
Expectations Keep Rising While Resources Do Not
Legal and procurement teams are still being asked to do more with less. Headcount remains flat. Budgets are tight. Meanwhile, internal stakeholders expect faster answers and shorter review cycles.
Leadership is beginning to recognize that preserving a fully manual review process does not protect quality. It preserves inefficiency and shifts risk quietly, agreement by agreement.
The assumption that careful review must be slow is finally being challenged. In 2026, the teams that perform best are not the largest ones. They are the ones that use systems to absorb volume and free their talent to focus on judgment-heavy work.
That includes vendor strategy, complex negotiations, policy exceptions, and proactive risk planning. The work that actually benefits from experience.
Moving Beyond Manual Review Is an Operational Upgrade
This shift is not about adopting AI for its own sake. It is about matching review capacity to institutional reality.
Higher education has outgrown purely manual contract review. The question is no longer whether manual review can still work. It is whether it works well enough to support modern campus operations.
In 2026, moving beyond manual review is not a radical change. It is a practical step toward maintaining institutional control as contract volume and expectations continue to rise.
Replacing Repetition, Not Judgment
What is happening now is not a trend driven by novelty. It is a course correction.
Institutions are not moving away from manual review because they want to appear cutting-edge. They are doing it because they want their legal and procurement teams focused on decisions that matter, not on repetitive tasks that software can handle more reliably.
Judgment, negotiation, and institutional nuance still belong to people. Consistency, pattern recognition, and repeat application of rules do not have to.
That is what contract review looks like in 2026 for institutions that want to protect standards, manage risk responsibly, and keep campus operations moving.
-min.svg)
