Over twenty years on, why Remit Consulting still insists on process mapping,

Andrew Waller

There's a particular moment that tends to happen early in a software selection project. Someone puts a feature list on the table, usually supplied by a vendor, and the room starts working through it item by item. Does the system do this? Tick. Can it handle that? Tick. It feels productive. It rarely is.

Remit Consulting has spent more than two decades avoiding that room entirely. Since the business was founded, the firm's approach to helping asset managers and fund managers choose IT systems has started somewhere else: not with what a piece of software claims to do, but with what the client's business does, day to day, workflow by workflow.

Finding out what you do

Process mapping sounds like a dry, back-office exercise, and in the wrong hands it can be. But the question at the heart of it is anything but administrative: what is the work the business needs to undertake, and how should that work be done in future? Not what a brochure says a system offers, nor a painstaking record of every inherited habit, but a clear, agreed view of the outcomes, decisions, responsibilities, data and controls needed to run a property, portfolio or fund well.

Reaching that view still means working with the people closest to the activity. Their experience reveals where work stalls, what is duplicated, which judgements matter and where poor data or unclear ownership causes friction. But Remit does not simply ask teams to describe today and then preserve it. We use our process library, sector experience and structured workshops to test assumptions, introduce leading practice and build agreement around a practical future state.

Since 2003, this approach has generated a substantial library of processes and a methodology that keeps evolving as client businesses and the technology available to them change. That library acts as an accelerator and a source of challenge: workshops do not begin with a blank page or assume that current practice is right. They begin with a tested view of what good can look like, which is then adapted to the client’s objectives, terminology and constraints. Over two decades on, Remit is running more process workshops than at any point in our history and finding more opportunities within them to identify where savings and better outcomes can be achieved.

Relevance

It would be easy to assume that process mapping is a legacy discipline, useful in an era of clunky software but less relevant now that AI may sweep away whole sequences of work. That challenge is fair, but it points to the need for better process design, not less of it. AI will remove some tasks, combine others and change where human judgement is required. Before any organisation can automate or redesign work responsibly, it must still agree on the outcome required, the information the process depends on, who remains accountable and where exceptions or controls sit.

That is why Remit’s maps are not intended as monuments to the present. They are working designs for the future: clear enough to support a current implementation, but capable of evolving as AI, automation and operating models develop. AI tools are only as good as the workflows, data and governance around them. Feed them confusion, and they will automate confusion faster than any human ever could.

Case study

Last year, Remit was approached to advise on the selection of a new software system, and the initial appetite for a full process mapping exercise was, to put it diplomatically, lukewarm. It was seen as an extra step, a delay before the real decision-making could start.

As the project progressed, that view shifted. The future-state process map that Remit developed with the client became the structure used to specify and shape the new system. The workshops did more than secure assent: they gave users a disciplined forum in which established habits could be questioned, alternatives tested and decisions made collectively. Rather than slowing the project down, the process work gave it something firm to build on, meaning fewer meetings circling the same undefined problem and a much clearer route from “we need new software” to a system designed around the business the client wanted to become.

Resist the urge!

For asset managers, property managers and fund managers weighing up a system or AI-enabled change, the lesson is not complicated, even if it runs against instinct. Resist the urge to start with vendors or tools. Start by agreeing the work, outcomes and controls the future business will need. That does not mean freezing today’s process, and it does not mean allowing the most change-resistant voice in the room to define tomorrow’s. It means using informed challenge and careful facilitation to create a future state that people understand, can scrutinise and are more likely to adopt. By the time a project reaches procurement or pilot, that shared design tends to be the thing that saves the most time and the most avoidable meetings.

The technology will keep changing, and some activities mapped today will disappear. The underlying question Remit keeps asking - “What is the work that actually needs doing?” - has not changed in twenty years. In an AI-enabled world, it is becoming more useful, not less.

If you're weighing up a system change and want to talk through where process mapping might fit into that, you can contact me directly.

ESG has not gone away

Adrian Allen

Part one of two

So, the picture so far: capital, attention and political energy are flowing towards AI at a scale with no real precedent; the built environment's own numbers haven't moved, and the regulatory floor just quietly changed in a way most of the market hasn't caught up with yet.

There is a particular kind of vertigo that comes from sitting in an asset management strategy meeting in 2026 and watching the agenda quietly reorder itself. Eighteen months ago, every board pack led with EPC trajectories, retrofit business cases and the green premium. Today, the opening slide is AI: co-pilots for underwriting, predictive maintenance, automated ESG reporting. These conversations are not wrong to have. The problem is that they are increasingly the only conversation being had, and the built environment's decarbonisation problem has not gone anywhere while everyone was looking at the shiny new thing.

This is a deliberately unfashionable argument: AI is not a substitute for Net Zero strategy in commercial real estate, and in some respects, it is making the underlying problem larger, not smaller. Owners and asset managers who let AI enthusiasm crowd out fabric-first retrofit planning are making a category error, treating a productivity tool as if it were a decarbonisation strategy.

The capital is moving, but not where the emissions are

The scale of capital reallocation towards AI infrastructure is genuinely without precedent. The International Energy Agency's 2026 analysis shows that capital expenditure by the largest technology companies exceeded USD 400 billion in 2025 and is expected to jump by a further 75% in 2026, a level of investment now larger than global spending on oil and natural gas production combined. Electricity consumption from AI-focused data centres surged 50% in 2025 alone, and "AI factories," data centres purpose-built for AI workloads, have more than tripled in capacity in eighteen months.

That is an extraordinary reallocation of capital, engineering talent and political attention, and it sits in direct tension with decarbonisation. The domestic picture matters most for a UK ESG and asset management audience. UK data centres now consume around 5.8% of national electricity generation, close to the 5% threshold that industry analysts identify as the point at which local political and community pushback typically intensifies. Grid connection demand has exploded alongside it: Ofgem's queue of contracted connection offers rose from roughly 41GW in November 2024 to around 125GW by June 2025, and the 140 proposed data centre schemes currently in the planning system are seeking around 50GW of electricity, 5GW more than Great Britain's entire peak demand of 45GW recorded in February 2026. A December 2025 London Assembly report warned that data centres could increase their energy needs in the capital by between 200% and 600% in the medium term, placing further strain on a grid already under pressure from electrification elsewhere. Slough, Europe's largest data centre cluster with 30 to 35 facilities, and Greater London, with over 1,000MW of capacity, sit at the sharp end of this. Six UK environmental NGOs, including Friends of the Earth, wrote to the technology secretary in March 2026 warning explicitly that AI data centre demand could drive up the UK's carbon emissions.

None of this makes AI inherently a climate villain. Hyperscalers (the largest scale providers – Microsoft, Amazon, Google & Meta) are signing genuine long-term renewable power purchase agreements, or PPA’s (long-term contracts to buy electricity directly from a renewable generator), and nuclear offtake agreements (advanced commitments to buy power from a nuclear plant, often signed before construction, to help finance the project). This suggests at least some of this demand growth will be met with low-carbon supply. But the honest summary, in the UK as much as globally, is that AI is not, on the current evidence, a straightforward decarbonisation dividend. It is a large new source of demand competing for the same constrained grid capacity, skilled labour and capital that the built environment retrofit challenge also needs. Every gigawatt of UK transmission capacity absorbed by a data centre campus is a gigawatt not available to electrify a building's heating system: the two are drawing on the same finite pipe.

Meanwhile, the built environment's numbers haven't improved

The built environment remains one of the largest single contributors to UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions, commonly estimated at somewhere between a quarter and over 40% of the total, depending on how embodied and operational carbon are scoped. Unlike AI's emissions trajectory, which is genuinely new and fast-moving, the built environment's problem is old, well understood, and stubbornly unresolved. That is arguably what makes it less exciting to talk about, and precisely why it deserves more airtime, not less.

Three data points illustrate the scale of what remains outstanding in UK offices specifically.

Savills estimates 58% of Central London office stock, by floor area, currently sits below an EPC B rating, and other industry analysis puts the proportion of English and Welsh office stock at risk from a future EPC C requirement as high as 73%.

Central London office rents are diverging sharply along sustainability lines. Savills' Q4 2024 data found BREEAM Excellent or Outstanding buildings achieving rents around 15% higher than lower-rated or unrated stock, consistent with JLL's global finding of a 7 to 12% green premium and a 42-study meta-analysis putting the average certified-building premium closer to 6%.

Q1 2026 Central London market data shows sustainability has moved "beyond preference and into leasing reality." Buildings without a credible improvement pathway now face longer voids and weaker investor appetite, regardless of location or specification otherwise.

This is not a hypothetical future risk. It is a present-tense repricing of the market, and it is happening at the same time as the industry's attention has visibly shifted towards AI tooling.

The regulatory goalposts just moved, and most owners haven't noticed

Here is where currency matters, and where I'd push back on the framing in a number of recent ESG briefings circulating the market. This includes Hollen+'s January 2026 presentation, which anticipated the government's long-delayed MEES review confirming an EPC B minimum by 2030.

That review has subsequently landed, and it isn't quite what was expected. In June 2026, the Government published its interim response to the 2019 and 2021 MEES consultations. The headline change is that the EPC B deadline has moved to 2031, and it now only applies to commercial buildings above 1,000 square metres, approximately 10,760 sq ft. Buildings below that threshold face a materially lower bar, EPC E rather than B. The previously proposed interim EPC C milestone for 2027 has been dropped entirely.

There are two ways to read this. The generous reading is that the government has finally provided certainty after years of delay, and the timeline extension gives owners genuine breathing room to plan retrofit capital expenditure sensibly rather than reactively. The less generous reading, and the one I'd weight more heavily, starts with the scale of what the 1,000 sqm carve-out actually excludes: approximately 85% of UK commercial property sits below that threshold. On the face of it, this looks like a policy that has just softened compliance for the overwhelming majority of the stock, at exactly the moment the market, per the Savills and CBRE data above, is already pricing sustainability credentials into rents and liquidity regardless of what the regulatory minimum requires.

The more useful way to look at it, though, is not simply that most buildings got let off the hook. Smaller assets carry smaller retrofit bills in absolute terms: less roof area, fewer plant rooms, a shorter run of glazing to replace.

The capital outlay required to move a sub-1,000 sqm building from EPC E towards EPC B or better is typically far more modest than the equivalent works on a large multi-let building. That changes the economics of acting early. For owners of this smaller-format stock, the relaxed statutory deadline is not really a reason to defer, because the cost of getting ahead of the market voluntarily is proportionately lower, and the leasing and valuation benefits documented earlier in this article apply just as much to a 5,000 sq ft building as a 500,000 sq ft one.

Occupiers and capital markets are moving faster than the regulatory floor across the size spectrum. Owners who treat the softened MEES timeline as licence to defer capex, whether they sit above or below the 1,000 sqm line, are, in my view, mistaking regulatory minimums for market reality. The two have already decoupled.

This is precisely the kind of granular, fast-moving regulatory development that a generic AI dashboard summarising "ESG risk" will not reliably catch, and that requires an expert reading the primary source, and not just the headline.

The question that leads to is, “What should owners and asset managers actually do about it, and where does AI genuinely fit into that answer rather than distracting from it?”

That's the subject of part two.

Contact Adrian Allen

Industry wide Asset Management systems survey

In our last newsletter, we provided an update on the findings of our ACES Survey 2025, a study of Property Asset Management Systems within public authorities. The survey was conducted in partnership with the Association of Chief Estates Surveyors & Property Managers in the Public Sector, exactly a decade after our first benchmark study from 2015, and forty local authority estates teams participated.

The full report revealed that three-quarters of councils use vendor-owned systems, a real shift towards consolidation. However, underneath that headline, the variation is stark: systems range from nine years old to nearly fifty, with a median implementation year of 2015. Our findings reveal a sector carrying a wide spread of legacy alongside newer investment, all at once.

The most uncomfortable finding, though, is this: only 17% of councils formally measure the benefits their system delivers. Four out of five authorities are spending real money, in some cases well over £250,000 a year, without a structured way of knowing whether it's working. Higher spend doesn't correlate with higher satisfaction. We describe this pattern as "spiral replacement": systems bought, implemented, and eventually replaced, without anyone ever establishing whether the last one delivered what it promised.

Initially, the full report was available only to participants, but is now available to interested parties upon request. Contact Tereza Jelinkova to request your copy.

You can read all about the ACES Survey 2025 here.

AI in Real Estate: Why the hard part isn’t the technology

Henry Harrison

The opportunity AI presents is still real. McKinsey has put a number on it, somewhere between $430 billion and $550 billion of value across real estate, construction and development, though most of that is expected to come from redesigned workflows rather than one-off prompts.

There's a commercial angle too: 58% of the respondents to our 2026 AI in Real Estate survey see the time-based fee model as the part of the business most exposed to AI. It’s worth thinking about that one, because it points to a harder question about where value actually sits once a task stops taking as long as it used to.

There's a temptation to treat AI as a fix for anything. Slow reporting, messy data, inconsistent processes: the instinct is to point AI at the problem and expect it to sort itself out. It doesn't work that way.

Many of you will already have seen the AI in Real Estate survey we published earlier this year. It's been quoted a fair bit since, and I won't repeat the headline numbers in full; however, it was identified that access to AI is now widespread, but only 7% of respondents said it was fully integrated into how their organisation actually works. That gap, not the technology itself, is the real story.

Most current AI use in real estate is still what it was when we first ran the survey: drafting, summarising, research, document review. Useful work. Over half of respondents using AI said it saves them more than 10 hours a month, and almost a third put the figure above 20 hours. We shouldn’t dismiss that, but speeding up an existing task is not the same as changing how a business operates, and the two keep getting treated as if they were interchangeable.

AI is only as good as the process it sits inside. If nobody can say where information lives, which system is the source of truth, or who owns a decision, AI won't clean that up. It will just help someone reach the wrong answer more quickly.

The survey also highlighted the emergence of what we termed "Shadow AI", where people use their own personal tools instead of whatever their firm has approved, because they find them faster or simply better. That's not really a technology problem. It's a sign that the governance conversation hasn't kept pace with how people are already working, and it carries obvious risk once client data and confidentiality are involved.

There's also a clear trust gradient worth remembering. People are comfortable letting AI handle low-risk, verifiable work like transcription or a first draft. That trust drops away fast once judgement or commercial consequence is involved: only 16% said they'd trust AI to estimate rental value or yield. Real estate runs on context, negotiation and knowing when something doesn't feel quite right, and none of that gets replaced by a model, however good it is at drafting an email.

None of this is an argument for caution. It's an argument for sequencing. Firms that give people a tool and stop there will pick up some time savings and not much else. The ones that treat this as a question about process, data and governance first will be the ones actually able to use AI properly, rather than just having access to it.

If you would like to discuss this topic or need to talk about integrating AI into your business, contact Henry Harrison.

The Coronation Problem

Charlie Bolam

The first in a new series uncovering the hidden truths of property management procurement.

If you're facing growing workloads, increasing performance expectations and an outsourced property management portfolio that seems impenetrable, you're not alone. This is the first in a series of articles aimed at helping you regain control of property management procurement, beginning with a closer look at the power and influence of the incumbent manager.

Most Property Management tenders are decided before an RFP (Request for Proposal) is even sent. It's rarely malicious. It's more likely an asset manager with a good working relationship with the incumbent's regional director, or an owner who was impressed by one bidder's presentation three years ago and never quite let go of it. The risk here is that tender documentation gets built around that instinct without anyone admitting, or even realising, it's there.

This changes what "good procurement" actually means. A tender should not be a test of who can write the best proposal. It's a mechanism for surfacing information the client doesn't already have about cost structure, about how a provider handles a difficult mixed-use scheme, about what happens when a fire safety issue lands on a Friday afternoon. If the outcome is fixed before the questions are asked, you haven't run a tender, you've run a coronation with paperwork.

The fix isn't to be cynical about incumbents - often they win for good reason, and re-appointing a strong performer is a perfectly legitimate outcome. The fix is separating the scoping conversation from the evaluation conversation. Before drafting evaluation criterion, spend the time upfront understanding what's actually driving the review: is it cost, is it service failure, is it a portfolio restructuring, is it simply governance requiring market testing every three years? Each of those points to a different weighting, a different set of reference calls, sometimes a different pool of bidders entirely.

If you find yourself running a procurement exercise to satisfy a board requirement for "market testing" while the operational team has no real appetite for change, bidders sense it. Good property management firms are not naive and can tell within the first site walk whether they're genuinely in contention or filling out a headcount for governance purposes. That's an expensive, reputationally awkward way to find out you weren't serious about the process.

Running procurement well means being honest, internally, about what you're actually trying to learn before you ask the market to tell you. Everything else is just structure around that honesty.

To discuss the best way to approach your next procurement project, speak to Charlie Bolam.

Lorna's Logic: "I was going to do something productive, but then I … “

Most of us can be quite easily distracted. “Squirrel!” springs to mind for any lovers of the film UP.

We shouldn’t beat ourselves up over it; we are just naturally responding to something, anything, that is more exciting than what we are doing at this precise moment. What, however, if what we are doing just now is vital, regardless of being tedious?

I do not believe I am alone with the feeling that all the techy nerdy guys have ‘left the building’, just a couple of empty cans of Red Bull and Wotsit packets inert beside sleeping laptops, while they are enthralled and absorbed with AI and all its exponential potential (have I just invented a useless meme there?).

Yes, we, the common folk, are excited and a bit scared of AI. Yes, we are mainly using it in our daily lives, but hang on, why is my email behaving oddly, why won’t this page load, why are there bugs in my software and WHY WON’T THIS DAMN THING PRINT??

I would be amazed if you guys out there have not also felt that cracks are beginning to appear in the foundations of our base technology. AI is being prioritised over all else, and so God help you if you have such a mundane problem as Outlook not syncing properly. What the tech giants are trying to do is amazing (if somewhat cavalier), but the existing platforms are not getting nearly enough love. What use is a monumentally intelligent LLM if you cannot apply it with a standard Office suite application?

I get it that focus and love for AI is not the sole problem here, we are putting way more strain on the data centres and even the software engineers, but come on Microsoft et al, hive off a group to actually concentrate on those areas that are interrupting our workflow, our contribution to GDP, and ultimately your customers who you want to fall in love with the sparkly disco-ball you are building (aka The Death Star).

Another year, another UKREiiF.

Remit Consulting’s Steph Yates and Charlie Bolam spent three days at UKREiiF, in Leeds, attending panels, meeting clients and partners, and taking the pulse of the UK real estate market.

Here's what stood out.

The macro mood: cautiously optimistic

The market is optimistic but slow. Volatile is the new normal. The UK remains a haven for global capital; our relatively stable government and strong legislative framework continue to be genuine differentiators. But our weaknesses are equally well known: successive governments meddling with budgets, a lack of joined-up thinking across departments (land, planning, utilities, and transport all operating in silos), and a persistent reluctance to welcome private infrastructure investment.

Net zero: the gap between ambition and delivery

One of the most striking statistics of the week: the amount of energy curtailed in the UK in 2025 was enough to power London for an entire year. Investment in renewable generation has raced ahead of investment in transmission, and that gap needs to close. Placing data centres adjacent to renewable energy plants was floated as one practical solution.

Net zero cannot be achieved without private finance, and local authorities are saying that they need to be genuine partners in that story, not just recipients of policy. Enabling communities to financially benefit from local renewable schemes could also be a powerful antidote to political backlash. Meanwhile, there's a real skills and language gap between local authority teams and the financial institutions they need to work with. Closing that gap is as important as any policy lever.

Planning: still broken, still getting worse

A consistent theme across conversations, from lawyers to developers to architects, was deep frustration with the planning system. The consensus: skilled planners are leaving for consultancy and private sector roles, and the pipeline isn't being replenished. This isn't a new problem, but it's an accelerating one.

AI and data: foundations first

Several panels this week circled the same truth: technology is an enabler, not a solution. The biggest risk in real estate right now isn't underinvesting in AI; it's overinvesting without the right people, processes, and data foundations in place. Asset managers may understand the value of tech integration, but ground-floor teams often don't, and if they don't, adoption fails - with expensive mistakes following.

The data centre conversation brought this into sharp focus: three-quarters of a data centre's lifetime cost is energy. Location decisions are fundamentally energy decisions. Getting the underlying data right matters enormously.

Housing and social value

Average build times have ballooned from 11 to 40 weeks. The UK is now importing bricks rather than making them. And on Thursday, Homes England, Oxford City Council and the Crown Estate were among those calling for a shared database to capture social value and wellbeing data across schemes; building the evidence base that developers and councils both need.

There was also a notable push from the One Built Environment campaign to have the real estate sector recognised as a single economic entity, with aligned policy, unlocked investment, new homes, and a stronger talent pipeline. A collective voice for an industry that has too often spoken in fragments.

And finally, the conversations that matter most

As ever, the real value of UKREiiF is in the meetings, the drinks receptions, and the chance encounters in between. Thank you to everyone who made time for us this week. The conversations were, as always, the highlight.

What were your standout moments from Leeds this year?

Remit Consulting brings the data to BBC Radio 4.

What does our research tell us about the return to work, productivity and attitudes to the workplace?

The question of where and how we work has rarely been far from the headlines since the pandemic, and this week it reached one of the UK's biggest stages, with Remit Consulting's Lorna Landells appearing on BBC Radio 4's ‘You and Yours’ to discuss what the data tells us about the return-to-work debate, productivity and what office workers think about the workplace.

Lorna was the expert guest on a national phone-in, which drew on our growing body of research into workplace behaviour, giving a national audience a chance to hear what the numbers say, rather than just the opinions.

The conversation touched on the tensions many organisations and individuals are still navigating: productivity, flexibility, office attendance, and what employees actually want. It's a debate that shows no sign of settling, and one that Remit Consulting has been tracking closely for over five years.

If you missed the broadcast, you can catch up on BBC Sounds, and if the discussion sparked your interest, the research goes much deeper.

Explore Remit Consulting's data behind the debate:

• The Return Report

• Office Workers Survey

• Productivity Report

The data is better. The workload isn't.

By Andrew Waller, Remit Consulting

Local authority estates teams have made real progress on data quality in recent years. Modern asset management systems have replaced the lever-arch files and spreadsheet patchworks that defined the sector not so long ago. Our latest research, conducted with ACES, found that ratings of "good" or "excellent" data quality doubled after teams implemented new platforms. That is a genuine achievement.

But the picture behind that headline is harder to sit with.

Three-quarters of estates professionals describe their workload as "heavy" or "extremely heavy." Only one in four feels it is manageable. These are not abstract statistics; they represent colleagues trying to deliver compliance, strategy, and day-to-day property management simultaneously, with budgets and staffing that have not kept pace with what is being asked of them.

Part of what I find striking in the data is the gap between owning a system and actually using it. When tools are not embedded in daily workflows, the efficiency gains stay on paper. The data improves; the pressure does not.

It is against that backdrop that I read the AI figures. Over 70% of respondents are either exploring or planning to adopt AI tools within the next 12 months, despite only 8% currently using them. From a sector not known for rapid technology adoption, that level of appetite tells its own story. I have described it elsewhere as a cry for help from an overstretched sector, and I stand by that.

My concern is sequencing. AI has real potential here, but automation built on inconsistent data or weak governance will not fix the workload problem; it will push it further downstream. For most teams, the immediate priority should be extracting more value from systems they already own, before adding another layer of complexity.

What the research shows me is a sector with no shortage of ambition. What it needs is the space, support, and investment to act on it.

The full findings from the 2025 ACES survey are available on request.

AI at MIPIM: from chat to consequence

by Andrew Barber

At MIPIM 2024 and 2025, artificial intelligence was hovering around the edges of the event. A session here, a fringe panel there. This year was different. AI emerged as the defining theme of the four days in Cannes, in the way ESG once was, but with a critical distinction: it is no longer being discussed as an ambition. It is something the industry is actively, if unevenly, having to deal with.

The timing of our own research felt apt. The 2026 AI in Real Estate Survey, produced by Remit Consulting with Antony Slumbers and supported by the UK PropTech Association, launched at the event. Its findings landed with an audience that was already primed for the conversation. Access to AI is now near universal: 93% of respondents said their organisation provides it. But the survey's more telling finding is the gap between access and maturity. Only 7% of firms describe themselves as fully integrated. The majority are using AI for transcription, drafting and summarisation, while deeper capabilities such as governed workflows, knowledge management and agentic automation remain largely untapped. The technology is in the room. Most firms are still deciding what to do with it.

At MIPIM, the physical consequences of AI were hard to ignore. Data centres dominated the investment conversation, with demand for capacity accelerating decisions at a pace the market hasn't seen before. Energy infrastructure and power availability have moved from secondary considerations to primary ones. The footprint of AI is growing faster than the sector's ability to plan for it.

The overall mood was cautious rather than frozen, with some investors still actively acquiring. But the message coming through both the conference and the survey was consistent: the firms best placed for the next cycle will be those moving beyond access and toward governance, data quality and embedded capability. Adoption is high. Maturity is not. That gap is where competitive advantage will be won or lost. And as Lorna Landells argues in her blog, as those decisions get made, it is worth looking closely at who is in the room making them.

Download a full copy of the AI in Real Estate Survey 2026.

Breaking the "query loop": Major firms back new charter for service charge scrutiny

• A new industry framework, backed by Colliers, Knight Frank, Cushman & Wakefield and BNP Paribas Real Estate, aims to end the cycle of repetitive correspondence and streamline communication between property managers and tenant consultants.

In the world of property management, a familiar and frustrating cycle often plays out. A property manager receives a list of service charge queries from a tenant’s consultant. They reply, providing documents and clarifications. Two weeks later, a second list arrives containing the same questions, slightly reworded, alongside requests for information already provided in the original reconciliation pack.

Individually, the requests are rarely unreasonable. Collectively, however, they create a "query loop" that consumes hundreds of administrative hours, delays resolutions, and leaves tenants waiting months for clear answers.

To break this cycle, Remit Consulting’s Property Managers Forum has launched the Property Managers’ Charter for Engagement with Service Charge Consultants.

A unified front

The Charter represents a significant shift in how the industry handles scrutiny. It has already secured the backing of four of the industry’s biggest players: Colliers, Knight Frank, Cushman & Wakefield, and BNP Paribas Real Estate.

The goal is not to limit a tenant's right to scrutinise costs. Instead, it aims to professionalise the interaction.

"Service charge queries are a normal and necessary part of the job," says Lorna Landells of Remit Consulting. "But when questions arrive in fragmented stages or repeat requests for information already provided, it slows the entire process down. This Charter creates a structure so enquiries can be dealt with efficiently, ensuring tenants get the answers they need much faster."

The "One-and-Done" approach

At the heart of the Charter is a push for transparency and preparation before a single question is even asked. Under the new framework, consultants are expected to provide:

• Clear credentials: A statement of professional qualifications and confirmation of their appointment by the tenant.Defined methodology:

• An outline of the review's purpose and the fee basis.

• Audit trail: A list of documents already in their possession to avoid duplicate requests.

Crucially, the Charter encourages consultants to submit a single, comprehensive set of queries at the start of the process rather than "drip-feeding" questions over several months.

Accountability for managers

The Charter is not a one-way street; it places strict expectations on property managers to be more responsive.

Once a completed query template is received, managing agents commit to acknowledging it and providing a clear timeframe for a full response within 15 working days. Both sides are also encouraged to appoint a single point of contact to prevent communication from becoming fragmented across multiple departments.

Martin Lovejoy of Colliers believes the initiative dissolves a friction point that has plagued the sector for years. "In most cases, everyone is trying to reach the same outcome, which is a clear understanding of the service charge," he explains.

"A more structured approach ensures that questions are addressed properly the first time, making the process work for everyone involved."

Aligning with professional standards

The framework is designed to sit alongside the RICS Service Charge Code, reinforcing existing professional standards while providing the practical steps for daily interactions.

As commercial buildings become more operationally complex and service charge costs face tighter scrutiny, the Property Managers Forum views this Charter as a vital step toward professional discipline.

By stripping away unnecessary friction, the real winners will be the tenants, who will finally see an end to the administrative delays that have historically clouded service charge resolution and drawn property managers away from more beneficial activities.

If you would like to learn more about the Charter, please contact Charlie via charlie.bolam@remitconsulting.com.

2026 Office worker survey: Key shifts in Gen Z engagement and workspace requirements

The 2026 findings of our annual Office Worker Survey were published recently, and the data highlights three specific trends that have significant implications for developers, investors, and occupiers evaluating their long-term leasing strategies.

Gen Z: The primary driver of voluntary attendance

Our youngest cohort (ages 18–34) now accounts for over 40% of responses. Notably, this group is the most likely to have increased their office attendance voluntarily, with 80% of regular office-goers in this bracket stating the choice is theirs.

This trend is likely a response to the loss of informal mentorship during remote-working years, coupled with the limitations of urban residential spaces. While office mandates often face resistance from older demographics with established home offices, the younger workforce is increasingly viewing the office as a primary site for professional development and social capital.

The resurgence of the allocated desk

The demand for a fixed, allocated desk has risen from 28% to 43% since 2023. This shift suggests that after years of optimising home setups, workers increasingly value the "familiarity" and productivity of a dedicated space.

For investors and occupiers who have prioritised aggressive desk-sharing ratios, this data suggests a need for recalibration. The rise in reported noise and distraction complaints suggests that "flexibility" should not come at the expense of a stable, quiet work environment.

Prioritising infrastructure over amenities

In a notable shift for the investment community, "wellness amenities", such as gym facilities and free catering, were rated as essential by only 13% of respondents. This contrasts with the prevailing market narrative that has positioned high-end lifestyle perks as a primary leasing differentiator.

Instead, the data points to a "flight to quality" regarding fundamental environmental factors: air quality, natural light, and acoustic management. While less photogenic than a wellness floor, these core elements appear to have a higher impact on long-term tenant satisfaction and retention.

Strategic implications for the 2026 market

The overarching message of this year's survey is a return to fundamentals. While the "hotelisation" of the office brought necessary improvements to the user experience, the data suggests that long-term value now lies in supporting the practical requirements of a younger, office-reliant workforce. Success for landlords and occupiers will likely depend on balancing flexible terms with the physical stability and environmental quality that workers can no longer find at home.

Download a full 2026 copy of the Office Worker Survey.

If you would like to discuss these findings or explore how they apply to your portfolio, please get in touch at return@remitconsulting.com.

Lorna’s Logic: "I feel like I'm invisible / You treat me like I'm not really there" Alison Moyet

By Lorna Landells

I’m not really big on women being the ‘best at everything’ or ‘you go girl’, but I do believe in parity at work. I enjoy the differences between men and women, how we think and act make for a far more interesting world than if we were all the same. However, despite my advanced years, I remain gob-smacked that the world of property has not really changed in its stance on women; to a large extent, we remain invisible or, occasionally, merely eye-candy.

I travelled to MIPIM in a group that included one other female. This was her first time at the event, and on the last day, she made the unbidden comment, “I am looking forward to seeing jeans again, oh and women!”

The numbers at MIPIM were definitely down this year, but the proportion of women seemed to be too.

Three years ago, I wrote a blog about hybrid working and its specific impact on women, quoting the Economist’s “Glass Ceiling Index” from that year. We, as in Britain, sat at 17th place out of 29 then, and, lo and behold, we are still at number 17, way below the OECD* average. What is going on?

We have upped the number of women in government, now over 40%, but are still lagging at 32% in the House of Lords (clues in the name?). However, when we come back to the world of property, it drops yet further: 20-30% of senior leadership roles are held by women (1). Furthermore, as a personal observation only, I believe some of those are actually being double-counted since female NEDs are definitely in demand, and certain names just keep on cropping up.

So, come on, guys, we’re over here, we’re over here! Diversity in the workforce can only be a good thing, surely. We’ve already lost the ESG audience to AI frenzy, let’s at least try to keep one eye on the inclusion ball.

(1) Real Estate Balance 2026

Don’t overlook the 'G'

By Steph Yates

The real estate industry has made significant strides in embedding ESG principles into investment decision-making (perhaps pretend you didn’t read that line if you are in the US). Environmental credentials are scrutinised at acquisition, social impact is measured and reported, and governance frameworks are increasingly demanded by institutional investors and regulators alike. Yet within that governance conversation, one area remains absent: cyber security.

15 years of consulting means that I now gap analyse everything, and this one has sirens and red flashing lights blaring.

For fund and asset managers, governance obligations are not optional: they include how data is protected, operational risk mitigation, and how businesses demonstrate to investors that their controls meet the expected standard. Cyber risk sits squarely within that remit, and its importance is growing.

Real estate businesses hold some of the most sensitive data in the financial ecosystem: ownership structures, fund performance, acquisition pipelines, tenant information etc. A cyber incident during a fundraise or transaction is not just an IT inconvenience, it is a governance failure, and investors are starting to treat it as one.

New and improved regulation reinforces this. DORA (the Digital Operational Resilience Act), the FCA, and the ICO are all placing greater emphasis on operational resilience and cyber security. Businesses subject to this regulation cannot afford to treat cyber security as someone else's problem.

Practical steps exist. The UK Government's Cyber Essentials framework provides a structured, independently verified approach to establishing and demonstrating baseline cyber controls. At its higher tier, Cyber Essentials Plus, businesses undergo rigorous external testing of their systems and processes, providing a credible and recognised signal of operational maturity.

We are proud to have achieved Cyber Essentials Plus certification, and we see it as a natural extension of the governance standards we hold ourselves to on behalf of our clients.

If cyber security isn't yet part of your ESG governance conversation, it may be time to put it on the agenda.

For more information on this, please contact Steph Yates.

Julia's Jottings: LinkedIn, AI and the quiet shift most people missed

By Julia Waller

It started, as these things often do, with a small line in a settings menu.

Back in November, LinkedIn made a change that many users will have scrolled straight past. Since then, the platform has been using public member data to help train its own AI systems. Profiles, posts and public activity are now part of the raw material shaping how LinkedIn’s future tools work.

Private messages are not included, which will be a relief to many. Still, it marks a meaningful shift in how professional data is treated on the world’s largest business network.

What actually changed

LinkedIn confirmed that from November 2025, it began using public member data across the EU, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Hong Kong to train its AI models. The stated aim is to improve search, recommendations and new AI-driven features.

By default, members are opted in. If you do nothing, your public activity is included. You can opt out, but only retrospectively. Anything already collected remains part of the training data.

This is not hidden or underhanded, but it is easy to miss unless you actively review your data settings.

Why this matters, even if it feels abstract

On one level, this is simply how modern platforms operate. Many people will shrug and move on.

But for anyone who uses LinkedIn as more than a digital business card, it is worth pausing. If you spend time crafting posts, sharing insight, refining your CV or building a professional voice, that work may now help train automated systems designed to replicate, summarise or repurpose similar content.

The upside is clear enough. Better recommendations, smarter tools and a platform that, in theory, understands its users more accurately.

The trade-off is subtler. Your words, ideas and experience contribute to something you do not control, are not credited for, and may never see directly.

What it means for businesses and advisers

For companies, advisers and professional services firms, this is a new layer to consider.

Content posted on company pages or by staff acting in a professional capacity may now feed directly into AI tools owned by the same platform distributing that content. That is a shift from content simply being seen or shared to content actively shaping the systems behind the scenes.

There may be benefits in visibility and relevance. There is also a lingering question around ownership, context and unintended reuse. None of this is unique to LinkedIn, but it is becoming harder to ignore.

It is another reminder that public content rarely stays in the box we imagine it lives in.

The wider direction of travel

LinkedIn is not acting in isolation. Meta, Google and others are all moving in the same direction. Platforms increasingly want to train their own AI models using their own ecosystems, rather than relying on scraped or third-party data.

This feels like the beginning rather than the end. AI can be a powerful tool, but as it learns more from our behaviour, language and patterns, new risks emerge alongside the efficiencies. More convincing scams, deeper impersonation and blurred lines between human and automated voices are already part of the conversation.

It is the familiar, slightly weary debate about data being used in ways that stretch beyond our original intent. The difference now is scale and speed.

What you can do

If you would prefer not to take part, opting out is straightforward:

Go to Settings → Data privacy → How LinkedIn uses your data → Data for generative AI improvement, and switch the toggle off.

Even if you leave it on, the important thing is awareness. Knowing how your data is used allows you to make deliberate choices about what you share and how you share it.

Changes like this rarely arrive with much noise. They appear quietly in settings menus, policy updates and footnotes, then gradually reshape how platforms behave and how professionals engage with them.

This shift aligns with patterns already emerging in Remit Consulting’s work on AI in real estate. Not dramatic disruption, but steady integration. Tools learning from behaviour, systems becoming more predictive, and data taking on a longer life than many users expect.

There is no single right response. Opting out or staying in is a personal and organisational choice. What matters more is awareness. Understanding how these platforms evolve, and how our professional activity feeds into that evolution, is becoming part of the job.

Sustainability and Net Zero in real estate: insights from the PAM/PM Forum

Earlier this month, Remit Consulting hosted its latest joint PAM/PM Forum, our regular gathering of property and asset professionals designed to explore practical challenges and emerging trends in real estate. This session focused on one of the sector’s most urgent priorities: delivering credible progress toward Net Zero.

A keynote from Emily Hamilton of Emily Hamilton Advisory, followed by breakout sessions and a group discussion, highlighted a market that is eager to move but constrained by policy uncertainty. Shifting regulations, particularly around EPCs, continue to complicate long-term investment planning. While many questioned the usefulness of EPCs as a core performance measure, there was broad agreement that they can still act as a useful trigger for conversations with investors and occupiers, provided they are paired with more meaningful operational data.

Data emerged as the standout theme of the morning. Attendees noted that ESG and energy data collection is increasingly embedded within property management activity, yet the industry still lacks consistent standards, clear ownership and reliable access to occupier information. Strengthening data governance and analytics capability was widely seen as essential for prioritising upgrades, validating interventions and tracking value over time.

Another strong message was the need for even deeper collaboration between PAMs and PMs. Strategy-setting, execution and reporting often sit in separate silos. Participants highlighted the need for clearer shared goals, earlier visibility of budgets, and a shift toward rewarding measurable outcomes rather than inputs.

Finally, the room emphasised the importance of scale and learning. Portfolio-level procurement, structured knowledge-sharing and a willingness to adapt as technologies evolve were all identified as key enablers for accelerating decarbonisation.

The consensus was clear. Better data, stronger alignment and proactive action can drive meaningful progress, even in the face of ongoing policy uncertainty.

Remit Consulting hosts its PAM and PM Forums to provide a practical space for open discussion, shared learning and informed debate across the sector. If you would like to attend a future forum, or explore any of the themes discussed in more detail, please contact Charlie Bolam at Remit Consulting via charlie.bolam@remitconsulting.com.

From the early web to AI: a real estate technology reflection

By Andrew Waller

I still remember the slightly awkward meeting, nearly twenty-five years ago, when a group of us at a Big Four consultancy were, ahem, “encouraged to consider our next move.” It does not feel as long ago as it sounds, but as we look back at the founding of Remit Consulting, it is striking how much of our original mission remains unchanged.

Back then, I even wrote a book for the Estates Gazette called IT for Property People, which tried to predict the future. Given the current uncertainty in the world, it feels like a good time to see which of those predictions landed and what the next decade holds.

The Context of 2003

When we started, we were experts in real estate technology in a very different world. This was eight years after Windows 95 began harnessing the World Wide Web and mere months after the dotcom bubble burst. The iPhone didn’t exist yet, and the BlackBerry was about to become the must-have tool for agents.

What we got right

Our core conviction was that firms should understand their own processes before choosing technology. This led to the Remit Process Model (RPM) and our leading practice library. We believed that fixing the business problem first was the only way to make technology work. Nearly 25 years and thousands of workshops later, that flexible, templated approach to business change remains unique to the industry, and more relevant than ever.

What we got wrong

We were over-optimistic about the speed of change. We thought that after five years, everyone would have adopted leading practice and that future gains would be incremental. How wrong we were!

Two decades later, we are running more process workshops than ever. We underestimated how long even simple automation, like deal flow management, would take to become established. Many ideas mooted in 2001 didn't become reality until after the Great Financial Crash. Even now, the European software market remains fragmented, and implementations are often riskier and more expensive than they should be.

The Shifting Landscape

The most visible shifts in the early 2000s were in residential property. US startups like Zillow paved the way for Rightmove to transform sales. While brochures became PDFs early on, saving about 30 days of manual work, genuinely useful tools like digital signatures didn't gain widespread traction until after 2015.

In the UK, commercial real estate's use of social media is still largely focused on LinkedIn. While other industries have become adept at mining digital data, for commercial property, it still feels as if the industry hasn't embraced social media data in the same way as, say, the finance industry as a whole.

And what of AI?

We are likely entering the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner’s Hype Cycle. Early, unrealisable expectations are being moderated. However, the pressure is real:

Fund Managers are exploring AI to lean out experienced asset management teams.

Property Managers are facing margin squeezes that force them to automate or fail.

ESG Regulations have made data a board-level discussion, requiring reporting speeds that manual processes can't match.

AI will certainly have an effect, though in the short term, it may feel detrimental as the technology struggles to catch up with over-ambitious cost-saving targets.

Final thoughts

Is our industry really 20 years behind other industries? Perhaps. But that doesn’t diminish the challenge. The change management principles of our RPM are even more vital today as we navigate this next wave.

In 2003, we had no idea what the World Wide Web would eventually become. We guessed; some of our guesses were right, and some were wrong. That is exactly where we are with AI today.

London after dark: Why nightlife matters for the built environment

Written by Henrietta King

There is a rhythm to London after dark – the flow of people through neighbourhoods, high streets and transport hubs. For decades, that rhythm shaped the city’s identity and fuelled its economy. Now, it is beginning to falter, with consequences that reach deep into the future of the built environment.

London has already lost one in five bars since 2020. If current trends continue, it could lose half of its nightlife by 2030. For a global capital, this is more than a social concern; it is a structural one.

London’s nightlife has always evolved. Its current challenges are serious but not irreversible. Reversing the decline will require collaboration across planning, development, transport and policy and a recognition that the city thrives not only in daylight, but after dark.

Shifting Behaviours and Expectations

Much has changed since the pandemic. Covid shuttered venues and disrupted social habits, but six years on from lockdown, the decline can no longer be attributed solely to Covid.

The social attitudes of Londoners, particularly younger generations, are changing. Lifestyle choices increasingly prioritise balance, wellbeing and affordability.

Nearly 40% of young adults now report that they do not drink alcohol at all. That alone reshapes the types of spaces people seek after dark, favouring multifunctional venues, cultural programming and experiences that are less centred on alcohol.

Economic Pressures on Both Sides

Moreover, the cost-of-living crisis has also exposed the true cost of a night out. Rising rents, utilities and food prices have made nightlife an increasingly discretionary expense. Among 18–30‑year‑olds, 68% say today’s economic climate has directly reduced how often they go out at night.

For operators, the pressures are even more acute. Rents and business rates have risen steadily, while energy bills and staffing costs continue to climb faster than revenues. Many venues, particularly grassroots and independent spaces, operate on razor‑thin margins. When set against increasing regulatory burdens or the financial implications of redevelopment, the challenges become existential.

Corsica Studios, the much‑loved cultural institution in Elephant & Castle, is only one example. After 24 years, the venue announced its closure due to nearby development triggering new sound‑mitigation requirements that were financially unmanageable. It is a case study in how planning, redevelopment and cultural infrastructure intersect and how easily the balance can tip.

Infrastructure Gaps: Transport, Safety and Planning

London’s night‑time infrastructure has not kept pace with the city’s changing needs. Transport is a recurring concern: while millions rely on buses, trains, and the Night Tube, gaps in coverage, particularly in outer boroughs, make late‑night journeys costly, slow or unsafe. For many Londoners, especially women and marginalised groups, safety remains a determining factor in whether they go out at all. For operators, fragmented licensing frameworks, inconsistent borough‑level approaches and lengthy planning processes create uncertainty and cost.

A Turning Point: The Nightlife Taskforce

In recognition of these pressures, the Mayor of London convened an independent Nightlife Taskforce in 2025 to examine the city’s night‑time ecosystem and propose interventions. Their recommendations, published this year, are detailed and ambitious.

They call for modernised licensing, integrated planning approaches, better night‑time transport alignment, dedicated funding for nightlife innovation, and, crucially, the recognition of nightlife as culture. Not a nuisance. Not an afterthought. A cultural asset with economic, social and placemaking value.

Why This Matters for Real Estate and Urban Development

For the built environment sector, nightlife is far from peripheral; it is integral to how cities function and create value. A healthy night‑time ecosystem strengthens local economies, shapes place identity and supports a truly 24‑hour city.

Nightlife drives significant economic activity, supporting over a million workers across hospitality, transport, logistics, security and cultural production. Its impact stretches far beyond venues, sustaining the services and infrastructure that operate after traditional business hours.

It also attracts and retains talent. Nearly half of Londoners say nightlife influences their decision to stay in the city, a figure even higher among tech and creative professionals. Cities now compete as much on culture and experience as on jobs or housing, and nightlife is a key part of that offer.

From a placemaking perspective, night‑time culture defines neighbourhood identity and long‑term value. Areas like Shoreditch and Brixton became cultural destinations before they became investment hotspots. When nightlife declines, the vibrancy and distinctiveness that underpin these places, and support demand, are at risk.

A Strategic Imperative

Therefore, preserving and nurturing London’s nightlife is not an act of nostalgia. It is a strategy for economic resilience, cultural competitiveness and sustainable urban growth. Through collaboration in planning and development, improved transport, and supportive policy, London can regain its rhythm.

Lorna's Logic: Smarter than the average bear

I don’t want to be called ‘average’. Who does?

The more important question, though, might be “who is?”

We regularly hear references to the average person, the average family, the law of averages, and so on. However, fundamentally, that average entity does not actually exist. Before you worry that I am getting philosophical, or overly Zen in my old age, please tolerate a bit of maths speak.

As we know, there are three types of average: mean, median, and mode (any higher maths aficionados out there, keep schtum if this is not true in your rarified world). The most frequently used to prove a point is the mean (add up the numbers and divide by how many there are), but the one most of us interpret the answer as is the mode, the most common.

If you are told the average age is 35, most of us picture a room full of 35-year-olds, not a small group of teenagers and one octogenarian. When we hear that the “average family will be £2,000 a year worse off”, for example, how does that really help us, since none of us are actually average?

It sounds precise, but it explains very little.

Why am I ranting about this? I have noticed more and more that we are being urged towards the fictitious average, and it would be dangerous to believe the fallacy that good and evil will somehow balance out and, by the law of averages, good things will follow bad.

The ‘law of averages’ is often referred to as the Gambler’s Fallacy, so named because of a specific event in Monte Carlo where the roulette ball landed on black 26 times in a row (you can see where this is going, can’t you). On the next spin, the punters lost millions.

Which brings us from gambling with money to gambling with intelligence.

We are awash with AI today and are repeatedly told that it will return “the average” response. The Law of Large Numbers has proved that a coin flip, repeated over and over, will tend towards a 50/50 split between heads and tails, that is, the theoretical probability.

Therefore, also theoretically, with more data, AI will continue to head, inexorably, towards the average. If you follow that line of reasoning, AI’s impact on business performance should become more and more predictable as it consumes yet more data, though in the interim, it could be all over the shop, to use a technical term.

But AI usage is a different matter.

This will likely follow a power law (unless you are one of those aforementioned higher maths geeks, do not follow up on the formula for this one), which means, in a business sense, that those with greater skill at prompting or agentics will skew the “average” in their favour. The result is not a gradual lift for everyone, but a widening gap between those who know how to use AI well and those who do not.

Firms which embrace and explore AI will undoubtedly reap rewards disproportionate to their peers.

Not really average at all.

I am saying the average person does not exist, and I am not alone in that statement. But maybe the average business really does exist. A bit like a unicorn, living on only in the whimsical minds of those who thought they saw one.

You really have to be smarter than the average bear these days to get even close to stealing that picnic basket, and hoping the ranger does not notice.

Senior CIOs and property leaders gather in London for Realcomm CIO & PropTech Forum

Senior leaders from across UK real estate, transport and infrastructure came together in London for the Realcomm CIO & PropTech Forum in December; a senior-level forum focused on how digital strategy, data and emerging technologies are influencing real-world decisions across the built environment.

The closed-door event prioritised practical experience over theory, with open discussion on what digital transformation looks like in practice for complex asset owners and operators. It brought together CIOs and senior decision-makers from across commercial real estate, transport and the wider built environment to share experience and insight on topics ranging from data-driven decision-making and AI adoption to operational resilience, workplace strategy and organisational readiness for change.

Discussions reflected a growing convergence between real estate and infrastructure, with contributors highlighting common challenges around legacy systems, fragmented data and the need to align technology investment with long-term asset performance. Rather than focusing on specific products or platforms, the emphasis was on practical lessons from live programmes, and on the role of leadership in embedding digital capability across complex organisations.

Andrew Waller, of Remit Consulting, spoke to the forum about the importance of reliable workplace and operational data in a market where occupiers and asset owners are under increasing pressure to justify space, cost and performance decisions.

“Across the UK real estate market, we are seeing much greater scrutiny on how buildings and workplaces actually perform in use,” he commented, adding: “Technology has a critical role to play, but only if it is grounded in clear objectives and good data. The conversations at the forum reflected a growing maturity in how organisations are approaching digital change, moving away from experimentation and towards informed, evidence-led decision-making.”

The infrastructure perspective was provided by Network Rail, with a focus on how large, nationally significant asset portfolios utilise technology to enhance operational outcomes and long-term resilience.

Network Rail’s Vince Herrera-Leon said, “For infrastructure owners, digital transformation is not abstract. It directly affects safety, reliability and value for money. Many of the challenges discussed, from data integration to organisational change, are shared with the real estate sector. Forums like this are valuable because they allow different parts of the built environment to learn from each other in a very practical way.”

Kevin Kincaid, Group Transformation Director at Grosvenor, who hosted the event, said, “One of the most valuable aspects of bringing this group together was the chance to step back from individual projects and look at the common challenges we are all dealing with. Having open, senior-level conversations like this helps move the industry towards more informed, joined-up approaches rather than isolated solutions.”

The forum also underlined the growing importance of cross-sector dialogue as technology agendas increasingly overlap. Participants noted that issues such as AI governance, cybersecurity, skills and change management are now central to both property and infrastructure strategies, particularly in the context of ageing assets and long-term investment horizons.

Commenting after the event, Howard Berger, Managing Partner and SVP, Programs at Realcomm, said: “The quality of discussion at the London CIO & PropTech Forum was extremely high. What stood out was the openness with which senior leaders shared real experiences, including what has worked and what has not. That level of candour is essential if organisations are to make meaningful progress with digital transformation. We are building on this momentum as we look ahead to Realcomm 2026, which will take place in San Diego on June 3–4, 2026.”

The London event forms part of Realcomm’s wider global programme, designed to support senior real estate and infrastructure leaders in navigating the strategic, operational and technological challenges shaping the future of the built environment.