Property management does not have a shortage of technology.
It has a shortage of time.
New platforms, automation tools and artificial intelligence products are appearing across the industry, each promising to make agencies more efficient. Yet many property managers remain overwhelmed by maintenance follow-ups, inspections, compliance, owner communication and an administrative workload that never appears to shrink.
Jason Colbey believes the problem is not necessarily the technology.
It is how businesses decide which technology they need.
The Head of Community for Australia and New Zealand at Tapi told Real Estate Today that agency principals should resist the temptation to begin with a product demonstration or a list of available software.
They should begin with their property management team.
“Go to your team and ask what the biggest pain points are,” Colbey said during a conversation with RET founder Nic Fren on The Chat.
“What is taking up most of their time? Is it chasing people for maintenance? Is it doing inspections? Is it preparing to go to tribunal?”
That conversation may be more important than any technology purchase that follows it.
Property managers working inside a portfolio every day generally know where time is being lost. They know which processes create double handling, which tasks are repeatedly delayed and which parts of the week disappear into phone calls, emails and follow-ups.
The mistake, Colbey said, is purchasing several platforms before identifying the operational problem the business is attempting to solve.
“If you go headfirst into it and say, ‘Tech stack, let’s look at everything,’ you are going to confuse yourself,” he said.
“You are going to sign up for a bunch of things you probably do not need, and you are not hitting those key time wasters in your team’s week.”
For many agencies, the pressure is concentrated in two areas.
Maintenance and inspections.
Maintenance requires property managers to coordinate renters, owners and trades while tracking quotes, approvals, appointments, invoices and completion. When one participant stops responding, the property manager is generally expected to restart the process.
Inspections carry a different but equally substantial workload, including preparation, travel, time at the property, reporting and follow-up.
Neither function can simply be removed from property management.
The opportunity is to reduce the administration surrounding them.
Colbey believes a connected technology stack can help, provided each product is selected to solve a specific business problem and the systems communicate without forcing property managers to enter the same information repeatedly.
The objective should not be to accumulate more software.
It should be to return usable time to the team.
That distinction is particularly important as artificial intelligence becomes embedded across property management platforms.
Colbey is an enthusiastic user of AI, but he does not see it as a substitute for professional judgement or human relationships.
AI may help prepare an email, organise information, summarise a document or accelerate a repetitive process. It cannot understand the full history of a difficult owner relationship or recognise when a renter requires empathy rather than another automated response.
It also cannot be assumed to be correct.
Colbey warned that AI-generated information must be checked, particularly when it relates to legislation, compliance, tribunals or advice that could affect an owner or renter.
“I think it is great, and I use it every day, but I also know that I have to check the information that is produced to make sure it is right,” he said.
Property managers should never copy an AI-generated response and send it without reviewing the content, context and tone.
An incorrect answer involving tenancy legislation is not simply a technology error. It becomes the property manager’s communication and the agency’s reputational exposure.
AI should therefore be treated as an assistant, not an authority.
Its most valuable role may be reducing the time spent completing repetitive work so property managers can return their attention to the parts of the role that technology cannot perform.
That includes talking to clients when nothing has gone wrong.
Colbey recalled making Christmas calls to owners during his own time in property management. Rather than expecting a friendly check-in, owners frequently assumed there was a problem.
Their first question was often some variation of: What is wrong now?
The reaction revealed how accustomed owners had become to only hearing from their property manager when there was a repair, an arrears issue, a complaint or an unexpected expense.
That is the relationship cost of an overloaded property management department.
When every available hour is spent responding to problems, proactive communication disappears.
Rent reviews are delayed. Portfolio conversations become transactional. Owners begin to judge the agency solely by how it performs during moments of pressure.
Colbey believes technology should create room for a different experience.
“Retention is a huge piece of this,” he said.
“It is much easier to hold on to a client than it is to go out and find another one. Show them the attention. Put time back into those clients.”
A property manager who has time to call an owner before there is a problem can change the nature of the relationship.
That call may not produce an immediate new management or measurable transaction, but it can strengthen trust, improve retention and create the conditions for future referrals.
It can also differentiate an agency more effectively than another claim about service.
Technology may create the time, but the property manager still has to use it deliberately.
Colbey also sees an opportunity for agencies to make better use of the operational information they already hold.
Tapi’s quarterly Property Maintenance Index analyses maintenance patterns, commonly reported repairs and average costs across its available data. The free resource can be broken down across Australian states, nationally and across New Zealand.
Colbey said property managers can use this type of information to give owners greater context around maintenance patterns and possible expenditure.
It can also support more useful agency content.
Instead of publishing another generic market update, a property management business could explain the maintenance issues appearing most frequently, the costs owners are experiencing and the practical steps investors should consider.
That positions the property manager as someone who understands the operational performance of an investment property, not simply the collection of rent.
It is also an example of technology supporting professional authority without attempting to replace the professional.
Tapi has recently expanded into the United Kingdom and Ireland after what began as a fact-finding exercise reportedly produced enough interest to support a market launch.
The expansion indicates that the operational challenges surrounding property maintenance are not unique to Australia or New Zealand.
The systems, terminology and regulations may differ, but property managers across markets are still attempting to coordinate repairs, control communication and prevent essential work from disappearing between multiple parties.
Colbey’s broader argument is that the value of technology should be measured by what it allows the business and its people to do next.
If automation saves several hours but those hours are absorbed by more administration, little has changed.
If those hours allow property managers to complete overdue rent reviews, contact owners proactively, strengthen renter communication or concentrate on portfolio retention, the technology has produced a commercial outcome.
That is the conversation agency principals should be having before approving another subscription.
Where is the team losing time?
Which processes are creating the most pressure?
What would the property managers do if those hours were returned to them?
And how will the business ensure the time saved is reinvested in work that improves the client experience?
Colbey does not believe artificial intelligence is going away, nor does he believe property managers should be frightened of it.
But he is equally clear that technology cannot carry the relationship responsibility sitting at the centre of the role.
It can prepare the communication.
It cannot replace the conversation.
The agencies that benefit most from AI will not necessarily be those with the largest technology stacks.
They will be the businesses that understand where their people are losing time, use technology to recover it and reinvest those hours in the relationships their competitors have become too busy to maintain.
Jason Colbey joined Nic Fren on The Chat, the Real Estate Today podcast.
This article was independently written and edited by Real Estate Today. Comments were made by Jason Colbey during an interview with Real Estate Today founder Nic Fren on The Chat. © Real Estate Today 2026, All Rights Reserved.
This article was independently written and edited by Real Estate Today. © Real Estate Today 2026 – All Rights Reserved.
Real Estate Today is the most engaged & influential real estate industry publication throughout Australia and New Zealand.
