If your current toolkit has worked for years and is deeply embedded in your team, it’s easy to see technology as unnecessary change. Longstanding systems, even if outdated, often feel "safe" simply because they are known quantities. They’ve seen you through volatile markets, investment committee cycles, and operational audits. This familiarity creates a strong psychological and procedural inertia, where the cost of changing tools seems higher than the benefit of adopting new ones. Yet, this perceived safety can quietly limit adaptability, scalability, and long-term competitiveness.
For many institutional investors, Change is often perceived not just as effort, but as risk. New platforms require onboarding, training, and internal buy-in. There’s uncertainty around data integrity, integration with legacy systems, and whether the new technology will genuinely deliver better outcomes. For teams already stretched thin, introducing change feels like opening a door to more complexity.
And familiarity is hard to leave behind. Many selectors still follow a process that hasn’t fundamentally changed in decades; from cold calling managers, mailing paper due diligence requests, to relying on manual notes and spreadsheets. These tools may feel dependable, but they also mask process inefficiencies that have accumulated over time. Without visibility into inefficiencies (duplicated effort, lost insights, or opaque decision-making, etc.) investors may be unaware of how much friction has been normalised. Familiarity can dull the urgency to improve, even as the industry shifts around it.
This resistance isn’t unique to asset manager selection. It’s human, and amplified at the organizational level. Inertia sets in, especially without a clear catalyst.
Technology has quietly become indispensable, not just in our personal lives, but across industries. From how we communicate to how we shop, navigate, and learn, technology has reshaped every facet of modern life. What once required planning and effort now happens seamlessly through digital interfaces. The shift has been so gradual and intuitive that it’s easy to forget just how dependent we’ve become on it. We once resisted software. Now we download apps without hesitation. The initial skepticism around technology has faded. What began with cautious experimentation has become a default behavior. In many ways, resistance has given way to reliance.
In the corporate world, enterprise tech drives operations from manufacturing to government intelligence. Most industries have restructured around digital infrastructure. Manufacturing uses real-time sensors and predictive analytics. Government intelligence agencies rely on integrated platforms to manage sensitive data and operations. Even highly regulated sectors like healthcare and finance have adopted end-to-end digital solutions. The promise of these technologies is not just speed or cost savings, it’s precision, transparency, and control.
This transformation is no longer abstract. It’s deeply personal and professional. Today, institutional professionals live in both analog and digital realms. Morning meetings may be in person, but decisions are informed by dashboards, scenario models, and real-time alerts. We use digital tools to track portfolios, model asset allocations, and manage risk. So why not use technology for manager selection? It’s a striking contrast: while the front end of investment management is increasingly data-driven and tech-enabled, the process of sourcing and selecting managers often remains manual, fragmented, and opaque. Institutional selectors still rely heavily on legacy workflows (Excel models, PDFs, phone calls, and Outlook folders, etc.) despite the scale and complexity of the decisions at hand. This gap is both a risk and a missed opportunity.
Across industries, digital transformation has become synonymous with relevance. And the investment world is no exception. As other industries continue to evolve, the expectation for transparency, responsiveness, and innovation in asset management will only grow. Investors who adopt forward-looking infrastructure not only protect their edge, but enhance it. In a world where performance and process are increasingly linked, the question is no longer if technology should be used, but whether your current tools are still fit for purpose.
Interestingly, the asset manager selection process is made up of several micro-processes, each of which is common in other industries. Similarly, it would be logical for asset manager selection processes to be facilitated by their own dedicated mega-app. Potentially merging intellectual property from other industries, into one single straight-through-process via an enterprise solution. The question is, would they use it? See exhibit 1.
Across the app world, developers are faced with the technology adoption curve. The duration of this cycle is determined by the mindset of the user group, and the app's viral/utility factor.
This is particularly true post-2020, with hybrid work models accelerating tech adoption across industries. Investment teams are increasingly asking themselves: Where should we be on the curve now?
According to this technology adoption curve, most fall somewhere between Early Majority and Late Majority... hesitant to lead, but open to move once value is proven.
While it’s difficult to pinpoint a single example for all teams, we often see the turning point come when selectors face increasing complexity: multi-manager mandates, greater regulatory oversight, or the need for auditable transparency. It’s in these moments that the inefficiencies of legacy tools become undeniable. A growing number of institutional investors are turning to enterprise software not just to cope, but to lead.
The answer to when you should digitize depends on more than individual conviction. It’s about enterprise value. What technology means across departments, workflows, and ultimately, outcomes. Once the utility is clear, the emotional resistance often fades.
So, what exactly does technology improve?
Let’s break it down using the asset manager selection spectrogram, a visual of where classic tools fall short and digital tools shine (Exhibit 2). At its core, every RFP process involves four tasks: sourcing, evaluating, collaborating, and documenting. Classic tools (databases, Excel, Word, phone, PDFs) were not designed to support these workflows end-to-end. They are fragmented, manual, and liable to governance gaps.
Digital tools like RFPnetworks transform this into a single, streamlined workflow. All activities, from distributing DDQs to scoring responses and tracking team feedback happen on one platform. This results in value accretion in terms of efficiency, decision quality, productivity, and the minimisation of governance risk along your value chain. This level of process integration was not possible until recent improvements in cloud-native infrastructure, user experience design, and workflow automation.
The result? What we call the Digital Delta — the sum of small but meaningful gains in:
Each improvement may seem incremental. Together, they compound into better decisions made faster and with more confidence.
Manual workarounds, email requests, scattered data, and duplicative document chases simply don’t scale. Neither does reliance on multiple expensive databases, each designed for a sliver of the market. Annual fees of USD 10k–250k+ per asset class can be hard to justify, especially when selectors still need to chase critical qualitative data manually.
More selectors are realizing this. They’re shifting to RFPnetworks, a platform purpose-built for the full process, where quantitative screens, qualitative diligence, team collaboration, and documentation live in one digital ecosystem.
The time saved is not just theoretical. Teams that digitize save significant staff hours that would otherwise be spent digging on spreadsheets, checking attachments, or tracking evaluation notes manually. This efficiency translates into real savings, not only in labor costs but also in opportunity costs. Time that was once lost on administrative tasks can now be reinvested into deeper analysis, better manager engagement, or higher-quality mandates.
Technology is both an industrial facilitator and a disruptor, but it is no longer the mythical enemy that will displace us all. Technology needs to be viewed as the catalyst for change, and its availability and presence should be seen as an opportunity.
Institutional investors often stick with outdated tools in manager selection because they feel familiar and “safe,” even though they may hide inefficiencies and limit progress. Technology is seen as a risky change, but that perception is shifting. Just as other industries have adopted digital solutions for precision and transparency, the asset management world is catching up. With rising complexity, fragmented legacy workflows are no longer sustainable, and the cost of doing nothing is growing clearer.
Platforms like RFPnetworks offer a single, integrated system for sourcing, evaluating, collaborating, and documenting. These tools improve efficiency, team alignment, governance, and decision quality, what we call the “Digital Delta.” The shift isn’t about replacing people; it’s about empowering teams to make smarter decisions, faster. As the industry evolves, staying analog may soon be the bigger risk.
