Why Technology Works Best When Process Comes First
- 13 hours ago
- 4 min read
With Jamie Keen and Mike Hilton
Asset managers rarely begin a technology project because everything is working well.
The trigger is usually visible before the root cause is understood. Teams are working long hours. Errors are increasing. Costs are rising. Information is difficult to obtain when it is needed. Processes no longer feel fit for purpose.
At that point, technology can feel like the natural answer.
But if the process is not properly understood, automation can only go so far. It may make work faster or improve visibility, but it cannot determine whether the underlying process is but it cannot determine whether the underlying process is actually the right one.
That is where technology projects can start to go wrong.
The risk is not only that firms automate a bad process. It is that they automate a process they cannot fully explain.
“We do not want to automate bad processes.”
That line, from our CEO, Jamie Keen, in Episode 4 of the SenseCheck by FundSense podcast, gets to the centre of the issue. FundSense can make existing processes more efficient and add governance, but Jamie is clear that firms miss an opportunity if they simply automate broken or poorly understood workflows..
Knowing something is wrong is not the same as knowing what to change
Asset managers often know they have a problem but may not know how to articulate it. They can see the symptoms: staff working long hours, errors, rising costs, tools or processes that are not fit for purpose, and difficulty getting the right information at the right time.
That gap matters.
A team may believe it needs a new system when the current system is being used in the wrong way. A firm may see a reporting issue when the underlying data is the problem. A process may appear to need automation when the real issue is unclear ownership, inconsistent data, or poor governance.
This is where a project can lose direction. If the problem has not been properly defined, technology is asked to solve something that is still unclear.
Discovery should challenge the current process
For FundSense, discovery is not simply about documenting how a client works today.
As Jamie explains in the episode, the more important question is:
How should this work?
That distinction matter because technology projects can easily end up recreating inefficiencies in a new format. If firms focus only on the current process, they risk digitising workarounds, gaps, and manual dependencies instead of improving them..
Good discovery should challenge the operating model itself:
What is actually necessary?
What is creating friction?
What should change before automation begins?
Once those questions have been answered, technology becomes significantly more valuable. It is no longer being used to support an unclear process. It is being used to support a process that has been properly understood.
Assessment of Value shows the cost of unclear process
An Assessment of Value case study exposes a familiar problem in asset management: the work was not only complex because of the regulation. It was complex because of the way the work had to move through the business.
Data had to be gathered, reports prepared, committies coordinated,and approvals tracked across large fund ranges, often through spreadsheets, tick lists, emails, and manual follow-up.
That pressure can easily be mistaken for a resourcing issue. Product teams working late into the night before board meetings may look like a capacity problem. But often, it points to something more structural: the process does not give teams enough visibility, control, or clarity over what needs attention.
Technology is valuable at this point, but only if the operational challenge has already been understood.
A workflow should not simply digitise the scramble. It should help teams see where each fund sits in the process, where progress is blocked, and where action is needed.
That is the sequence that matters: understand the pressure inside the process first, then shape the technology around the work that actually needs to happen.
The cost of unclear processes
When a process is unclear, a technology provider may have to make assumptions.
That creates risk. Not because the software is weak, but because the operating model has not been made clear enough for the technology to support it properly.
Jamie shares his experience of a project from FundSense’s early days: a project where the client did not have the business-side resources, process knowledge, project management support, business analysis support, or senior management oversight needed. That led to assumptions about the process, no one to validate those assumptions, delays, and ultimately the project being stopped.
That is the bigger risk.
Technology projects do not fail only at the point of build. They can fail much earlier, when firms have not created enough clarity around the process, the data, the people, and the operating model.
A better place to start
For asset managers considering operational change, the starting question should not be:
What can we automate?
It should be:
Do we understand the process well enough to automate it?
That question is more useful because it changes the shape of the project. It pushes teams to identify the real problem before selecting the solution. It reduces the risk of embedding workarounds. It helps avoid building workflows around assumptions. And it gives technology a clearer role: not to compensate for uncertainty, but to support a process that has been properly understood.
That is why the conversation between Jamie Keen, CEO of FundSense, and Mike Hilton, Head of Product Practice at Investment Solutions Consultants is worth listening to.
It is both a discussion about technology and consultancy and a practical reminder that successful implementation starts before the build begins.
Listen to Episode 4 of SenseCheck by FundSense to hear the full conversation.
Listen, Subscribe, and Stay Connected. Available on
Comments