Proving PropTech ROI to Real Estate: What Innovation Teams Are Measured On

If you’re a PropTech founder, you’ve likely experienced at least one ROI conversation that felt frustratingly circular. You’ve run a pilot that worked, the feedback was positive, and you can clearly see things have improved; yet that next step toward a full rollout still feels oddly out of reach. 

We recently sat down with innovation leads from across the UK real estate sector to find out what ROI actually looks like for them in practice. We didn't want the theory or the pitch-deck version; we wanted to know what gets discussed behind closed doors when they decide whether to kill a project or double down on it. 

What we found wasn't a tidy definition or a single magic number. Instead, it’s a complex mix of internal pressures, trade-offs, and corporate realities that dictate how value is interpreted, defended, and ultimately reported to the board. While these aren't hard rules, they offer a much-needed window into why ROI conversations often stall, even when a solution feels obviously valuable. 

ROI is usually about credibility before it is about upside 

One point that came up repeatedly is that the first question asked internally isn’t "How big could this be?" but rather, "Do we actually believe this?" 

Innovation teams occupy the tricky middle ground between enthusiastic founders and cautious internal stakeholders. Before they can even begin to argue for future value, they have to be 100% confident that your claims are realistic within their specific operating context. Ironically, huge numbers or sweeping promises of transformation can actually make their job harder; if the benefits feel disconnected from the day-to-day reality of the business, they lose interest. 

The reason for this is simple: innovation leads are personally accountable for what they sponsor. If they champion a solution that later falls apart under the cold light of a budget review, they are the ones who pay the reputational price. In a corporate environment, grounded, credible value builds trust. Overstated upside just creates risk. 

Founders often misread this, assuming that ambition is the same as persuasion. In reality, a modest, understated claim that survives scrutiny often travels much further than a bold projection that can’t be defended line-by-line. 

Pilots are not about proving the product works 

From the outside, a pilot looks like a test of functionality; a chance to show that the software does what it says on the tin. Inside a property firm, however, it’s actually a test of feasibility. 

Several innovation leads have told us that a pilot is really about unearthing the "hidden" side of the project: the integration effort, the actual time cost for staff, data access hurdles, and general stakeholder friction. A pilot that works perfectly from a technical standpoint can still fail the ROI test if it reveals that the operational drag required to keep it running is simply too high. 

This matters internally because anything that moves past the pilot phase will eventually have to work at scale. Innovation teams aren't just evaluating whether the tool performs its core task; they are trying to predict what a full rollout would entail. 

Founders often miss the mark here by treating a pilot as an isolated proof point. If you only frame the success of a trial around your product’s outputs, you’ll likely be unprepared for the questions leadership will ask later regarding complexity, resource drain, and organisational readiness. 

Evidence beats enthusiasm every time 

One theme that came through loud and clear was a strong preference for hard, observable change over theoretical benefits. 

We heard repeatedly that internal discussions lean heavily on "before-and-after" comparisons. Even if the data is a bit imperfect, a tangible shift in costs, hours saved, risk mitigated, or asset performance is much easier to defend than abstract concepts. Promises of "better decision-making" or "greater visibility" are difficult unless they are backed by something you can actually point to. 

This matters because innovation teams are rarely the final decision-makers. They act as the middleman, translating your outcomes for Finance, Operations, IT, and senior leadership, all of whom need something concrete to react to before they sign off on a budget. 

Founders often misread the room, assuming that shared excitement about the vision will be enough to close the deal. It rarely does. Enthusiasm might get you through the door, but only hard evidence will keep it open once the internal scrutiny starts to ramp up. 

Time to value matters more than total value 

A recurring point from our conversations with innovation leads was that when the value shows up, it is often more important than the total amount of value. 

Property organisations operate within strict reporting cycles, budget windows, and strategic periods. They are under constant pressure to show progress. If a solution promises a massive payoff but requires two years of complex deployment, intense change management, and a total shift in staff behaviour before it delivers, it’s going to struggle to survive those internal timelines. 

Internally, this matters because innovation teams are often measured on momentum as much as outcomes. If the value is slow to materialise, it becomes incredibly difficult for them to justify continued investment to their board, even if the long-term business case is rock-solid. 

Founders often mistake this for "short-termism." In reality, it’s about internal accountability. Quick, early signals of value act as a form of oxygen for a project. They give the innovation lead the political capital they need to keep a solution alive long enough for it to reach its full potential.

Internal costs are part of the ROI, even if no one talks about them externally 

One of the most consistent frustrations we heard from innovation leads is that founders often completely overlook the hidden internal effort required for a project. 

When a property firm calculates ROI, the conversation doesn't stop at the licence fee. Innovation teams have to factor in the cost of internal time, stakeholder coordination, integration work, security reviews, and the long-term burden of ongoing support. These costs won't ever appear on a vendor’s invoice, but they weigh heavily on the internal value equation. 

This is critical because innovation teams are often balancing multiple initiatives with very limited capacity. A solution that consumes a disproportionate amount of internal resources has to clear a much higher bar to be successful, even if the external pricing seems like a bargain. 

Founders often miss the mark by focusing purely on their own cost-benefit ratio. From the inside, however, ROI is holistic. Anything that adds friction or draws heavily on an already stretched internal team effectively reduces the perceived return on investment. 

Adoption risk is part of the ROI conversation 

A recurring theme in our discussions was that ROI isn't just about whether the value exists, it’s about whether that value will actually be realised. 

Innovation teams spend a lot of time worrying about whether end users, onsite partners, or contractors will actually bother to use the solution in the real world. In property, many tools aren't even used by the central team; they are handled day-to-day by third-party facilities managers or agents, which adds a massive layer of uncertainty to any rollout. 

This matters because, internally, unrealised value is still viewed as a failure. If a tool is paid for but sits on the shelf or is used inconsistently, the ROI argument completely collapses, no matter how impressive its theoretical potential was during the sales pitch. 

Founders often misinterpret this caution as "old-school" conservatism or a lack of ambition. In reality, innovation teams are just trying to avoid the reputational hit of backing a solution that looks brilliant on paper but fails to survive the messy, practical reality of live operations. 

Integration is often the silent ROI killer 

Integration came up again and again in our conversations, not as a dry technical detail, but as a major risk to a project's overall value. 

Property organisations manage incredibly complex technology ecosystems. They aren't just dealing with their own internal software; they’re often plugged into a web of external partners, property managers, and legacy platforms. If a new solution doesn’t integrate effectively or requires expensive, fragile workarounds to function, the cost of making it work can quickly erode the promised ROI. 

Within the business, this is a major concern because integration issues rarely stay contained. They inevitably increase the IT support burden, frustrate end users, and create long-term dependency risks that the organisation would rather avoid. 

Founders often underestimate how quickly these challenges can overshadow their product's core value. What feels like a solvable technical issue from the outside can be a complete deal-breaker internally if it adds too much noise to an already complicated environment. 

ROI conversations are shaped by internal reporting pressure 

Several innovation leads highlighted just how much the ROI narrative is shaped by what they actually have to report "upstairs". 

Innovation teams aren’t operating in a vacuum; they are accountable to boards, executives, and investment committees who demand clarity, comparability, and above all, defensibility. This pressure dictates which benefits are highlighted in a proposal and which are quietly sidelined, regardless of how much they might matter in practice. 

Internally, this is because innovation leads are essentially translators between two very different worlds. They might personally value qualitative improvements or long-term strategic alignment, but they know they have to anchor every decision in metrics that can survive formal scrutiny. 

Founders often misinterpret this as inconsistency. In reality, it’s a necessary response to the internal reporting realities these teams have to navigate. They aren't changing their minds; they’re just trying to frame your solution in a way that their leadership can actually sign off on. 

Pulling it together 

When you step back and look at these insights as a whole, it’s clear that ROI is as much a social and organisational challenge, rather than a numerical entity. 

Innovation teams are constantly performing a high-stakes balancing act (blending belief, evidence, timing, risk, and their own team's capacity), all while under significant pressure from above. When an ROI conversation stalls, it’s rarely because your product lacks value. More often, it’s because that value is difficult to prove, takes too long to surface, or would be too expensive for the innovation lead to defend in a boardroom. 

For founders, understanding this context can fundamentally change how these ROI conversations feel. They might not necessarily get easier, but they do become more comprehensible. What looks like hesitation or even moving the goalposts from the outside is usually just a champion trying to navigate genuine internal constraints without losing their credibility. 

A final thought 

At the end of the day, ROI in the PropTech world is rarely judged in a vacuum. It’s shaped by the sheer complexity of the organisation, the weight of reporting pressures, and the very real, often exhausting effort required to get anything approved and adopted within a large property business. 

The insights we’ve shared here aren't intended as a critique of founders or innovation teams, nor are they a "one-size-fits-all" checklist. Instead, think of this as ecosystem learning. The more we openly discuss these internal realities, the more productive those ROI conversations become for everyone involved.