A couple of weeks ago, I was on a call with a firm that had finally taken the plunge.
They’d moved off a very old, very clunky back-office system. The kind that had been “about to be replaced” for years but somehow kept surviving.
They’d switched to one of the big hitters. Proper infrastructure. Cleaner workflows. The sort of platform most advisers recognise instantly.
You could hear the relief.
“No more spreadsheets on top of the CRM.” and “No more double keying.”
Then one of the advisers laughed and said:
“It’s fancy… but I think we’re still doing things the old way inside it.”
That’s the bit that I’ve been replaying in my head.
Because upgrading technology is a big step. But it doesn’t automatically upgrade behaviour across the team. And a CRM isn’t just used by one person.
It’s touched by advisers, paraplanners, compliance, admin teams. One case can pass through five, maybe six pairs of hands before it’s finished.
If everyone has a slightly different understanding of what “complete” looks like, or what good documentation means, the system will simply reflect that.
The platform might be modern. The habits inside it might not be.
Integration is helpful. It isn’t the answer.
There’s been a lot of focus recently on integration and streamlining.
Money Marketing covered the Intelliflo and Söderberg partnership, aimed at simplifying adviser technology.
Intelliflo and Söderberg team up to streamline adviser technology
Dynamic Planner has also talked about unlocking trusted advice through stronger data and infrastructure.
Dynamic Planner sets out vision to unlock trusted advice
And there’s been a clear message across the trade press that data needs to sit at the centre of business strategy.
Why data must be at the centre of business strategy
All of that makes sense. But integration does not automatically create consistency.
If objectives are written differently adviser to adviser, the new system will store that difference more neatly. If suitability rationale varies wildly, the CRM will faithfully record that variation.
Technology is brilliant at amplifying whatever is already there. That includes inconsistency.
Why digital projects wobble
IFA Magazine recently explored why digital transformation fails.
How to ensure your digital transformation doesn’t fail
In my experience, it’s rarely because the software is poor. It’s usually because firms assume the system will create discipline.
Spoiler alert, It won’t. Discipline has to be agreed first.
Before you automate anything, you need clarity on:
- What good advice looks like in your firm
- How objectives should be articulated
- What a strong rationale includes
- What must be evidenced before a case moves forward
Otherwise you end up with a very modern system running very old habits.
And that’s when the excitement of “new tech” quietly fades.
Consolidation changes the lens
At the same time, consolidation and the great wealth transfer are shaping the market.
Defaqto’s recent platform review is another reminder of how quickly the landscape is shifting.
Defaqto reveals the recommended platforms that dominated last year
But here’s what I think often gets underestimated.
When firms merge, acquire, or prepare for sale, the question isn’t just “Which CRM do you use?”
It’s “How consistently do you use it?”
Because when ten different people touch a case, variation creeps in easily.
Different wording. Different levels of detail. Different interpretations of what “ready” means.
Under due diligence, that becomes visible very quickly. Buyers and consolidators are not looking for the shiniest system.
They’re looking for shared standards.
They want to see that regardless of which adviser handled the case, or which paraplanner drafted it, the structure and evidencing are consistent.
If that consistency isn’t there, it shows. And that’s not a tech issue. It’s a team alignment issue.
What “data at the centre” really means
When people say data needs to sit at the centre of strategy, it can sound quite grand. In reality, it’s simple. It means being able to answer ordinary questions confidently:
- How often do objectives change late in the process?
- Where does rework usually happen?
- Are discussions documented consistently?
- Can you see behavioural patterns across advisers?
Most firms have the data somewhere. Very few can see it clearly enough to act on it. There’s a big difference between collecting information and being able to rely on it.
Three simple exercises to try
If you’ve upgraded recently, or you’re planning to, here are three things worth doing before the next system review.
1. Compare 10 cases. Read only the objectives section. Do they follow a clear internal structure, or does each adviser phrase them differently?
2. List your non-negotiables. What are the 10 points that absolutely must be right for advice to be suitable in your firm? Are they structured? Validated? Consistent?
3. Separate speed from safety. For each tool you use, ask: Does this make us faster? Does this make us safer?
They are not the same thing.
Speed feels productive. Safety feels slower, but it’s what regulators, insurers, and future buyers care about.
Switching from an outdated system to a modern platform is absolutely the right move.
It reduces friction. It removes duplication. It gives you proper infrastructure. But the real upgrade isn’t the software. It’s the standards your team applies inside it.
Because heading into 2026, the firms that will feel most confident won’t just be the ones with the best integrations. They’ll be the ones with the clearest internal definition of what good advice looks like, and data clean enough to evidence it.
If this resonates with what you’re seeing in your own firm, I’d genuinely love to hear your experience.
