How do you test whether a proptech integration improves valuation work?

E

emery_gale

Homeowner
Keeping one broad platform and linking several specialist tools can both appear efficient, yet either approach can leave staff repeating work. We have trialled systems covering enquiries, document handling, viewing calendars and deal updates. The useful test is whether core property details carry across correctly, the audit trail survives, and the next person can understand what has already happened.

We now have to decide which connections are worth retaining. What would you record to measure actual time saved—retyped fields, corrections, missing context or handoff time—rather than asking users whether the workflow feels quicker?

Days-on-market information is a particular concern across countries. Imports may use different starting points or reset after relisting, so I would also like a way to test whether those figures remain comparable.
 
To clarify, I would count an integration as useful if a property record can move between tools without retyping core details, while retaining an audit history. A single dashboard is not automatically better if staff still have to open the original systems to verify documents, dates or permissions.
 
Start with the handoff, not the dashboard. Pick a few common tasks and record how many fields are re-entered, how often someone has to ask for missing context, and how long it takes to find the current document version.

For days on market, what timestamp do your existing systems use: first publication, latest relisting or the current agent's instruction date? A cross-country feed is not comparable until that definition is clear.
 
Fewer clicks may be the aim, but I would hesitate to use that as evidence that the valuation process has improved. An automated feed can shorten entry time while bringing in an old price, a duplicate property or a marketing date that restarted after relisting.

The real trade-off is speed against traceability. Staff should be able to see the source value, every later amendment and who changed it. I would include deliberately stale and duplicated records in the test, then check whether the integration flags them or merely moves them into a cleaner-looking screen.
 
Run a short parallel test with the same properties and staff. Compare manual versus integrated handling for entry time, corrections, missing fields, document-version mistakes and the time needed by the next person in the process. Also test permissions and mobile use separately; both can fail even when the desktop handoff works.

For multiple countries, keep each market's days-on-market definition visible rather than forcing the figures into one blended field. Before committing, ask whether records and change histories can be exported through an open integration if you later replace one part of the workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top