Asset management isn’t as easy as it used to be, eh?
Portfolios are rapidly expanding, operating costs are rising, the engineers you’ve counted on are retiring, investors are demanding more than ever.
You know there are inefficiencies in how the portfolio is run. You suspect that technology is the answer.
But there are hurdles to getting new tools implemented, starting with the fact that, as an asset manager, you’re generally not the end user and don’t have the full context of today’s workflows.
Over time, many asset managers have grown frustrated at the process. In some cases, it’s because they’ve been burned in the past and don’t want egg on their face again. Other times, it seems like whenever a new system is brought to your team’s attention, it gets shot down.
“We already have something that does that” is the fastest way to kill innovation.
Pro tip - next time that happens, go around to each of the operations managers and ask them the name of the tool they use. If you get multiple answers, therein lies one of the problems and a reason for why you have no transparency into what’s happening.
The problem is, there’s a world of difference between “something that does that,” and modern software-as-a-service (SaaS).
That “something” is often a legacy tool that only technically does the job, was clearly built years ago, and wasn’t designed to integrate with any other part of the business.
One look at the review makes clear, the operations teams are not holding onto what they’re used to because of the user experience…
They are holding onto it because of inertia.
And it’s not totally unfounded. There is some upfront work needed to learn a new software. For someone who spends their entire day running from one emergency to another, that is a daunting proposition.
squarespace.
So, how do we get on-site teams to adopt a new, more powerful tool that will ultimately help them, but just as importantly will provide critical insights for asset management?
By holding their hand and providing them with value upfront.
While you as an asset manager might be thinking through the cost-benefit analysis of investing in technology, operators are coming at it from a very different perspective.
Their biggest concerns are the time commitment required for the transition and onboarding, whether this new tool is redundant or will actually add value, and in some cases, concern about exactly what you want: a higher level of accountability.
These can be handled in order.
Onboarding
Legacy providers can get away with providing their software and expecting the users to set it up, learn how to use it, and deal with any shortcomings.
That is the status quo that operators expect. It’s a big reason they are hesitant to change. Because they remember how much time they’ve put into getting their current tool into the position it is today.
But modern SaaS companies, not just in PropTech but across industries, have perfected a hybrid approach that combines powerful software with personalized onboarding led by real humans.
If you want to learn more about Enertiv’s approach, head over to our FAQ on How Enertiv Does Real Estate Technology Onboarding.
The jist is that software today is combined with onboarding specialists, onboarding engineers and client success managers.
This takes the lift off the on-site teams for setup. All they have to do is show up for onboarding, which is a few hours of commitment, rather than the dozens of hours they expect.
The upper right of the below diagram, used in a presentation by Enertiv’s CEO on How to Make Preventative Maintenance Easy shows it clearly. Yes, there is a small upfront cost, but the dividends pay off exponentially.
Providing Value Upfront
If you’ve been following PropTech over the last few years, you might have noticed that legacy providers (often after being acquired by a private equity shop) have gone on buying sprees of smaller competitors.
As we covered in Why Stitching Together Technology Companies Doesn’t Work, this strategy has consistently created user experiences where tools that are purchased together do not actually function together.
These legacy providers have then spent years trying to convince their users to switch from the old tools that they know to the new one that looks nicer, but is often missing key features.
The alternative approach taken by modern SaaS companies is to build a platform that was designed from the beginning to integrate multiple workflows in one place.
Not only that, but the robust pre-onboarding work means that the information that operators were worried about having to load into the new system is not only pre-loaded, but more accessible than ever, such as through the power of asset tags.
Accountability
At the end of the day, the quality of building operators often follows a bell curve. There are a few that are truly exceptional, the majority are average, and a few are very poor performers.
Unfortunately, one of the problems that we’re solving for here is that asset managers don’t really have a way of knowing this information.
As such, during the evaluation process, the exceptional and average are generally going to cite their lack of time and the lack of need of modern software, but can be persuaded as outlined above.
On the other hand, the poor performers generally “doth protest too much” and understand full well the implications of improved transparency for asset management.
At the end of the day, there are going to be real estate portfolios that accept this inertia and those who do not. The results and outcomes will likely speak for themselves.
Conclusion
The market is changing and a wait-and-see approach is no longer viable when it comes to technology adoption.
There are often several hurdles to overcome when transitioning to a modern platform. One of those is almost always pure inertia.
Expecting this, understanding the root causes, and handling it effectively can be done. The best in the business are already doing it at scale.
The alternative is to allow inertia to kill innovation, making the portfolio less and less competitive over time.
.webp)
.webp)
