We Don’t Have a Tech Problem

There’s a tendency in the property industry to talk about technology as if it’s the thing holding everything back.

Not enough of it.
Not the right kind.
Not properly integrated.

Spend enough time in the space and you’ll hear the same frustrations repeated in slightly different ways. Transactions take too long, processes feel disjointed, systems don’t quite talk to each other in the way they should. The conclusion that often follows is that the answer must be more technology, or better technology, or perhaps just a clearer winner emerging from the ever-growing list of options.

But the conversation I had with Sammy Pahal made me question whether that’s actually where the problem sits.

Because when you step back and look at it properly, the industry isn’t short of tools. If anything, it’s the opposite. There is a vast and growing ecosystem of platforms, products and services all aiming to improve different parts of the property lifecycle. From planning and development through to transactions and management, there are very few areas that haven’t seen some level of technological attention over the last decade.

And yet, the overall experience hasn’t shifted as much as you might expect.

That disconnect is where things get interesting.

What Sammy articulates particularly well is that the challenge isn’t really about the availability of technology. It’s about how the industry understands it, approaches it and ultimately chooses to use it. That might sound like a subtle distinction, but it has fairly significant implications.

Because adopting technology in property isn’t just a systems decision. It’s a behavioural one.

It requires people to change how they work, how they think about their role, and in some cases, how they define the value they bring. That’s not always straightforward, particularly in an industry where many of the existing processes, however inefficient, are deeply ingrained.

It’s also an industry that, historically, hasn’t been under enormous pressure to change quickly.

As long as deals continue to happen and businesses remain profitable, there’s a natural tendency to stick with what is known. Technology then becomes something that sits alongside the process, rather than something that fundamentally reshapes it. It’s used where it fits, rather than driving a rethink of how things could be done altogether.

That’s where progress starts to slow.

What makes this moment different, and perhaps more important, is that there are now external forces beginning to push the industry in a more deliberate direction. Government is a big part of that. For all the criticism it often receives, there has been a noticeable shift in recent years towards recognising the role technology has to play in improving how property works at a systemic level.

Whether it’s the planning process, housing delivery or the mechanics of buying and selling, there is a growing acceptance that the current model isn’t as efficient or transparent as it needs to be. More importantly, there is now a willingness to engage with the industry to try and address that.

That doesn’t mean change will happen overnight. It rarely does, particularly when it involves policy, infrastructure and multiple stakeholders. But it does create the conditions for something more coordinated to emerge, which has arguably been missing for some time.

The evolution of organisations like the UK PropTech Association, and now the move towards Real Estate UK, reflects that shift. Bringing together different parts of the industry to create a more unified voice is, in itself, an acknowledgement that fragmented conversations lead to fragmented outcomes.

If the goal is to unlock the full potential of technology in property, then alignment becomes just as important as innovation.

And that brings us back to the original point.

If the tools already exist, at least in part, then the real question is not what needs to be built next, but how the industry chooses to think about what’s already in front of it.

That’s a more challenging conversation to have, because it moves the focus away from external solutions and back onto internal behaviours.

It asks whether businesses are willing to adapt, whether processes are open to being rethought, and whether the value agents and operators provide is clearly defined beyond simply managing the mechanics of the system.

None of that is solved by technology alone.

But without addressing it, even the best technology will struggle to deliver what it promises.

Which is why the idea that “we don’t have a tech problem” is worth sitting with for a moment.

Because if that’s true, then the opportunity, and the responsibility, sits elsewhere.