Pre-population of forms, sourcing systems, back-office functions, case-tracking, not forgetting the case management systems which can make client contact that much easier, have all helped advisers expand their offerings but also created far tighter business models.
But, let’s be honest, using new technology or old systems can sometimes seem like a long way from the enabler it’s meant to be. Indeed, there is surely a TV programme waiting to be made which could be titled, ‘When mortgage technology goes wrong?’ and I suspect there will be no end of advisers lining up to give their horror stories and various examples of when the technology made their (and their clients’) lives 100 times more difficult, rather than far easier.
To give you some idea of the level of frustration that technology can produce, why not take a trip to Twitter and search the tweets of some of the advisers on there venting their anger. I was amused earlier in the week to read a tweet from a well-known business breakfast presenter who was about to interview the head of a well-known ‘old/new’ bank the next day. She was asking for any questions that could be put to the CEO and one of the replies came from a mortgage broker asking if she could ask when said bank was going to sort out their online mortgage broker system as according to the adviser, “it’s useless”.
I’m sure this type of comment chimes with many advisers across the country who probably feel they spend half their lives ‘battling’ systems which were designed to make their life easier but end up doing the opposite. So, what can lenders do about this? Does the frustration come from the usability of the systems themselves or is it more a question around what it asks of brokers?
One of the major frustration points I hear vented by advisers is with legacy systems – those that have been around for an age and have become convoluted and cumbersome. These are the super-tankers of the mortgage system world and can’t be moved or changed easily but are often just patched-up in order to do a short-term job. The problem here is that the patching up can lead to a very strange and oddly functioning system which sometimes does the job but is incredibly clunky and in no way resembles a system you would create if you were starting from scratch.
Don’t get me wrong, I get the lenders’ dilemma here. How do you produce a fully-functioning, future-proofed system without ripping it up and starting again? Lenders can’t simply go offline with their current system until a new one is ready and the cost of patching – at least short-term – is far less than a completely new shiny system.
However, to my mind, this approach is a false economy because, over time, short-term fixes do not tend to produce fully-functioning, up to date systems. In fact, they produce the opposite therefore the sooner the lender can grasp this, and put the necessary resource into developing a new offering, the better for all concerned. Of course there will be teething troubles, errors, and ‘getting to know you’ phases but ultimately the lender, adviser and client all benefit.
The same could be said for systems as a whole – technology does not stop and therefore all developers need to have one eye on the future when producing their systems. There needs not just to be wiggle room, but room for growth to include new services and new innovations – if there isn’t you very quickly end up with a ‘new’ legacy system that causes all the issues and pleases no-one.
Technology is getting better, it is helping more advisers and it remains a great benefit for the market and our industry, yet it needs to be functional, simple and effective. If it’s not, then there’s simply no point having it available – we may as well go back to using a quill and ink; technology matters so let’s work together to ensure it continues to support advisers and helps them make a difference.
