What innovation teams really look for when engaging with PropTech

Over the last few months, we’ve been catching up with members of our Innovation Leaders Forum. These are the people on the front lines inside UK real estate and property firms, the ones tasked with exploring, vetting, and ultimately deciding which PropTech solutions actually get the green light. 

We asked them a fairly straightforward question: when a new solution lands on your desk, what actually determines whether it moves forward or goes nowhere? It wasn't a list of rigid rules or a formal checklist; instead, it was a set of recurring realities that these teams navigate every single day within their organisations. 

This article shares those insights in plain language. These are shared perspectives rather than universal truths, and our goal isn't to be critical or prescriptive. Instead, we want to help founders get a better handle on the actual context in which innovation teams are working, so you can speak their language from the very first meeting. 

Clear interest does not always mean internal priority 

A common theme we heard is that innovation teams are often genuinely excited by new ideas. Most of these professionals are naturally curious; they enjoy seeing what’s emerging in the market and are actively hunting for better ways of doing things. However, it is vital to remember that interest alone does not equal priority. 

Inside a typical property organisation, innovation leads are constantly juggling a dozen initiatives, shifting stakeholder demands, and very real capacity constraints. Even if your solution looks brilliant, it still has to compete for space against projects that already have senior-level sponsorship, a dedicated budget, or the immovable force of regulatory pressure behind them. 

Internally, the reason for this is simple: time and attention are finite resources. Innovation teams have to be incredibly selective about where they spend their political capital and internal effort. It’s not just about which tools they like; it’s about which ones they can actually push through the system right now. 

Founders often misinterpret early enthusiasm as a guarantee of momentum. It’s a classic mistake to assume that a great first meeting means the project will move quickly. In reality, even if the solution makes perfect sense, the innovation team might be waiting for the right internal window to open before taking the next step.

“Good idea” is not the same as “worth the disruption” 

One of the most common frustrations we hear from innovation leads is that many PropTech solutions are clearly well-built and clever, yet still incredibly hard to justify internally. 

The reality inside most property firms is that people have lived with imperfect processes for years. They’ve developed workarounds. Teams are well aware of the pain points, but they’ve also learned exactly how to operate around them. The status quo, however clunky, is a known quantity. 

For a new solution to actually gain traction, it has to offer a massive leap forward. It isn't enough to just be incrementally better or more modern than what’s already there; it has to materially change the game. 

This is because every new technology brings a wave of disruption. You aren't just buying software; you’re asking for time; time for implementation, training, complex integrations, and the inevitable headache of change management. If the promised benefit is only marginal, that disruption often outweighs any potential upside. 

The mistake many founders make is assuming that better automatically leads to adopted. From the inside, innovation teams are constantly asking: Is this change genuinely worth the hassle? When existing processes are familiar and stable, "good enough" can be a surprisingly difficult competitor to beat. 

Pilots are about reducing risk, not experimentation for its own sake 

Pilots and trials come up in almost every conversation we have with property firms, but rarely in the way founders expect. 

We’ve consistently heard that, within a large organisation, a pilot isn't viewed as a "playground" for experimentation. It is, first and foremost, a risk management tool. 

Innovation teams use pilots to limit exposure. Before they commit to a wider rollout, they need to understand real-world performance, the actual internal effort required, and any unintended consequences. It’s about stress-testing the solution in a controlled environment. 

This matters because rolling out new technology at scale carries significant reputational, financial, and operational weight. A well-structured pilot allows a team to test their assumptions without risking the rest of the business. 

What founders often misunderstand is treating a pilot as something informal or exploratory. In reality, a pilot is a serious gating mechanism. It is expected to produce credible, hard evidence that can stand up to the scrutiny of Finance, IT, Security, and senior leadership. If the data doesn't hold up, the journey ends there. 

Integration pain kills momentum very quickly 

If there’s one issue that came up more than any other, it’s integration. It is arguably the single biggest deal-breaker in the sector right now. 

Innovation teams aren't working with a blank canvas; they operate within incredibly complex technology ecosystems. Most UK property organisations rely on a web of deeply embedded systems, many of which are tied to third-party partners such as facilities managers, external agents, or security providers. If a new solution is difficult, expensive, or simply too rigid to play nicely with others, it’s likely to stall almost immediately. 

This matters because the integration effort does not neatly fit into one team. It inevitably drags in the IT team, external software vendors, and various operational teams, all of whom have their own competing priorities and packed schedules. When integration becomes a struggle, it quickly drains the goodwill and momentum built during the initial sales process. 

Founders often make the mistake of underestimating just how many systems and partners are actually involved. Your product might work flawlessly in isolation, but if it doesn't slot smoothly into that wider ecosystem, the innovation team will find it nearly impossible to justify the internal tax of making it work. 

ROI needs to survive internal scrutiny, not just sound compelling 

We heard time and again that, while ROI is essential, the glossy headlines in marketing materials don't carry much weight within a property firm. 

Innovation teams are under immense pressure to demonstrate value in a language the rest of the business actually understands. In practice, this means focusing on concrete metrics: cost reduction, cost avoidance, hours saved, risk mitigation, or a measurable boost to occupancy and asset performance. While intangible benefits are nice to have, they only really matter if they are backed by credible evidence. 

The reason for this is simple. Internally, innovation leads are accountable to Finance and Executive boards, groups that are naturally cautious about new spending. Any claim you make in a pitch deck needs to be robust enough to survive being grilled by a cynical Finance Director; it isn't enough for it to just sound plausible. 

Founders often make the mistake of assuming that strategic or qualitative benefits, such as improved brand sentiment or future-proofing, will carry the day on their own. In reality, a solution needs a clear, defensible value story that can hold its own when compared against every other investment option the company is considering. 

Internal complexity is real, and it slows everything down 

Almost every innovation lead we spoke with highlighted the same thing: organisational complexity is the silent killer of speed. 

Large property firms are rarely straightforward. Even for a relatively small deployment, you might need to get Asset Management, Property Management, FM, IT, Security, Finance, ESG, and Procurement all on the same page. Each of these functions arrives at the table with its own specific concerns, budget cycles, and approval processes. 

The reality is that innovation teams rarely have unilateral authority to just make it happen. Even when they are 100% sold on your solution, they still have to navigate a labyrinth of internal alignment and corporate assurance before they can give you a definitive yes. 

Founders often assume that if the innovation teams can simply push it through. In reality, the hardest part of their job isn't finding great tech, it’s keeping the momentum alive while coordinating across half a dozen different departments. 

Adoption matters as much as the product itself 

Several innovation leads were incredibly vocal about one thing: adoption is often the deciding factor in a project's success. 

You can have a technically brilliant solution, but it’s essentially worthless if the end users, the people on-site or in the regional offices, don’t actually use it. If a tool requires a massive shift in behaviour without offering a clear, immediate upside for the person using it day to day, it’s going to face an uphill battle. 

This is a high-stakes issue internally because failed adoption reflects poorly on the innovation team. They aren't typically judged on how many cool pilots they run; they’re judged on whether those tools stick and actually deliver the intended value. If they roll something out and the business ignores it, it drains their credibility for the next project. 

Founders often make the mistake of focusing almost entirely on what the product can do. From the inside, the "how" matters just as much as the "what." Innovation leads are looking at the training burden, the ease of onboarding, and how naturally the tool fits into existing workflows. If it feels like "extra work" for the staff, it’s a red flag. 

“Why now?” is often the hardest question to answer 

One insight that surfaced repeatedly in our conversations was the critical importance of timing. 

Real estate is an industry that has historically moved with great caution. Many property firms have been incredibly successful for decades without major technological disruption, and that history still shapes internal attitudes today. Because of this, innovation teams are frequently grilled on why a specific problem needs to be solved right now, rather than next year or even at all. 

This matters because, in a corporate environment, even a brilliant idea can be pushed to the bottom of the pile if there isn't a compelling reason to act immediately. Internal budget cycles, broader strategic shifts, and external market pressures all dictate the "when." 

A common mistake founders make is assuming that because a problem is real, it is automatically urgent. Inside these organisations, innovation leads don't just have to justify the solution; they have to justify the priority. They need to explain to their board why this project deserves a slice of the budget today, especially given the many competing demands on the business's capital and attention. 

Pulling it together: context over tactics 

When you look at all these signals together, they paint a clear picture of what it’s actually like to work on an innovation team today: it’s a constant balancing act performed within very tight constraints. 

These teams are perpetually weighing curiosity against caution, new opportunities against systemic risk, and exciting ideas against the cold reality of their organisation’s capacity. 

For founders, the most important takeaway here isn't about growth hacking your pitch or bolting on extra features to your roadmap. It’s about developing deep empathy for the environment your counterpart navigates. 

It’s helpful to remember that innovation leads are rarely blockers by choice. More often than not, they are acting as translators. Their job is to bridge the gap between a fast-moving tech solution and a complex, risk-aware organisation that requires careful, credible, and evidence-based convincing at every turn. 

Closing thoughts 

These perspectives aren’t meant to discourage founders, quite the opposite, actually. 

What they show is a genuine appetite for PropTech that solves real problems, integrates without a fight, and delivers credible value. They also help explain why progress can sometimes feel slower or more uphill than you might expect from the outside. 

At the end of the day, it’s alignment, not just persuasion, that moves the needle. When founders truly grasp the internal pressures and realities that innovation teams are navigating, the conversation changes. It stops being a sales pitch and starts being a productive partnership. 

This is all about ecosystem learning, sharing these insights in the spirit of helping everyone in the industry work together a bit more effectively.