Housing Technology interviewed senior IT and business experts from FLS – Fast Lean Smart, i4Housing, Kick ICT, NEC Software Solutions, PlaceChangers, Plentific and Voicescape about housing providers’ options around housing-specific software versus generic business software, including domain knowledge and functionality, ERP’s past failures, capex and opex costs, implementation and integration, success factors and potential pitfalls.
Do you need housing-specific software?
Gursh Lail, CEO of i4Housing, said, “Housing providers definitely need housing-specific software, particularly for core operational areas such as tenancy management, compliance, asset management and resident engagement.
“These areas are governed by sector-specific regulations, data standards and tenant expectations, none of which are accommodated by generic ERP platforms without significant and very expensive customisation.”
Douglas Drysdale, chief technology officer for Dynamics at Kick ICT, said, “It’s not a binary choice between housing-specific solutions and generic ERP solutions. Specialist software providers to the housing sector are now developing housing-specific functionality running on generic ERP solutions. This gives housing providers the option of having best-of-breed solutions that can share data quickly and easily.”
Trevor Hampton, director for housing solutions at NEC Software Solutions, said, “To meet regulatory demands, housing providers need software built specifically for housing management so that they can adapt to regulatory changes and address the complexities of rent collection, asset management and compliance.
“Generic enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems often lack the specialised, out-of-the-box functionality needed for core housing operations, making housing-specific solutions a more effective and efficient choice.”
Gary Haynes, managing director of Voicescape, said, “This isn’t housing specific; all business sectors have domain-dependent needs. Do you want to configure an out-of-the-box, sector-specific system to your use or customise (i.e. enhance, develop and augment) a generic ERP- or CRM-style solution?
“The costs of the latter option are higher, even if sector-specific systems sometimes suffer from ‘lowest common denominator’ issues. Customisation almost always costs more, is harder to upgrade and is more prone to scope creep.”
Going all-in with generic business software
Jeremy Squire, UK managing director of FLS – Fast Lean Smart, said, “Housing providers could, in theory, adopt generic business software across the entirety of their operations but only by substantially adapting those platforms via configuration options and integrations, and ideally with the adaptations done by a housing solutions specialist.
“More realistically, there are substantial advantages to taking these generic platforms and plugging in best-of-breed capabilities, such as FLS for field operative scheduling and Voicescape for arrears management. At the same time, generic software could more readily be applied across non-housing specific functions, such as finance, HR and payroll.”
Dr. Sebastian Weise, founder and CEO of PlaceChangers, said, “It’s technically feasible but not always practical, efficient or desirable. Generic platforms often need extensive customisation to suit housing-specific processes, which can lead to complexity and high implementation overheads.
“These systems can be part of the foundations of housing providers’ core internal processes but they rarely replace sector-specific tools entirely, which are much more adapted to focus on specific use-cases or end-users’ experiences.”
Emily Shaw, senior Director and product lead at Plentific, said, “Generic software solutions usually demand extensive customisation, considerable financial investment and long transformation programmes. Moreover, these endeavours rarely deliver the expected return on investment, particularly because changing regulations, staff turnover and evolving organisational priorities frequently derail even the best-laid plans.
“An important but often overlooked consideration is the long-term cost of maintaining generic systems – what seems like a flexible solution today can become a constraint tomorrow. Processes embedded with complex, housing-specific business logic become difficult to untangle, leaving housing providers stuck with systems that are too rigid to respond to emerging needs, policy changes or residents’ expectations.”
Voicescape’s Haynes said, “Housing providers could, in theory, adopt generic business software throughout their operations, but time and cost considerations would render that decision obsolete.
“Housing providers aren’t usually experts when it comes to large-scale IT integration and customisation project, and those people who are experts at it have business models driven by selling day rates of consultancy expertise.”
Past difficulties with ERP-style software
i4Housing’s Lail said, “One reason why ERP-style implementations have struggled in the housing sector is the challenge of matching off-the-shelf capabilities with the deep operational and regulatory requirements of social housing.
“Many housing providers underestimate the time and cost needed to adapt generic systems, with projects often collapsing under the weight of custom development, stakeholder misalignment or scope creep.”
NEC’s Hampton said, “ERP projects in housing can collapse under their own weight. Full-scale implementations can cost tens of millions of pounds and take five or more years to complete.
“In that time, delays and staff turnover can mean that when the systems eventually go live, the technology may already be out of date. It’s like building a bespoke engine while the rest of the world switches to electric; by the time it’s ready, everyone else has moved on.”
FLS’s Squire said, “Lack of funding and unrealistic cost projections, integration complexities with legacy systems and resistance to change have each contributed to low adoption rates and implementation challenges of ERP-style software in the housing sector.
“Other factors include poor and unrealistic planning alongside insufficient training for internal IT and digital transformation teams. Poor data hygiene and time constraints are further reasons for low adoption rates, as is the sheer scale of some of these transformation projects.”
Kick ICT’s Drysdale said, “ERP systems can be complex to deploy, and housing providers have very specific requirements. If the system implementer can’t bring sector-specific software or domain knowledge to the project then this is a potential recipe for failure.
“Housing providers often face challenges in mapping their specific needs and then ensuring their ERP partner understands their requirements so that the system can address them properly. Successful projects generally have strong support and clear vision from the project’s sponsors; without this, projects can lose momentum and fail to reach their goals.
“Data migration is another area with significant risk; migrating and cleansing legacy data is a critical step in any project implementation. Poor data mapping and migration can lead to problems in the new system which ultimately lead to failures. It’s therefore critical that the implementation partner is familiar with housing data and has the right tools for the data migration.”
Procurement factors to consider
Voicescape’s Haynes said, “The primary factor is the total cost of ownership (TCO). Housing-specific solutions contain domain knowledge and sector specifics out of the box, whereas those same things need to be customised (or trained/developed) into generic software. The TCO for generic software is almost always higher in the long term.”
PlaceChangers’ Weise said, “Decision-makers and procurement teams should assess the upfront costs against the long-term support burden, sector-fitness, integration potential and ease of end-user adoption. Transparency in roadmap alignment with the software vendor and post-launch support should also inform choices and this is where housing-specific software can shine.”
Plentific’s Shaw said, “As well as functional coverage and cost, an understanding of the total cost of ownership is needed, taking into account custom development, ongoing maintenance and consultancy costs. Implementation time is also a key factor; the more you need to customise a system, the greater likelihood of project delays and scope creep.”
i4Housing’s Lail said, “Housing providers must balance functionality with flexibility. Housing-specific software tends to offer out-of-the-box support for critical areas such as regulatory reporting, asset safety modules and resident workflows. In contrast, generic software may boast integration and scalability but achieving housing relevance usually requires third-party overlays, plug-ins or custom builds.”
Generic software with housing functionality
FLS’s Squire said, “Generic business software can be tailored with housing-specific functionality and domain knowledge through pre-built configurations from specialist technology providers, drawing on housing-specific data, business processes and regulatory requirements.
“For example, there are numerous solutions on Microsoft Dynamics built by housing experts, which enable rapid deployment and can be used with best-of-breed add-ons such as dynamic scheduling from FLS.”
Kick ICT’s Drysdale said, “Generic business software can be adapted to include housing-specific functionality by partners with domain knowledge, although this usually involves significant development work to tailor the software to handle tasks such as rent collection, maintenance scheduling and compliance tracking.
“To achieve housing-specific functionality, the generic software will need to be integrated with other specialised housing systems, typically requiring middleware or custom development. This is where the selection of partner is critical because using a housing-specific partner, with its own pre-built housing functionality, will help ensure that the software is built and configured correctly.”
NEC’s Hampton said, “Although generic business software can have housing-specific functionalities, there are far more cost-effective and efficient ways to achieve the same goals.
“If you ask an ERP provider if its system can collect rents, the answer will always be ‘yes’, but that capability will need to be built from scratch. The housing provider will also need to specify the exact outcomes its looking for, what the on- and off-boarding processes look like, how much the lifecycle costs will be and avoid being locked in with a specific vendor.
“On the other hand, housing-specific systems come with a ready-made blueprint so it’s a simpler process for a housing provider to apply its own rules in areas such as rent collections or asset reporting for compliance.”
Plentific’s Shaw said, “While some generic platforms can be customised to include housing-specific features, this often requires significant time, cost and effort. True domain knowledge isn’t just about adding features; it’s about understanding the workflows, compliance requirements and frontline realities of the housing sector.
“Unless you can financially commit to working closely with consultants who can map out these processes for you or employ in-house product managers capable of covering both technical and operational perspectives, it’s unlikely that you’ll ever get the results that you’re after from a generic platform.”
Upfront & lifetime costs
Voicescape’s Haynes said, “The TCO is almost inevitably higher for generic business platforms. The question is then – do you want to spend £5 million on a new highly-customised, high TCO platform or spend it on repairs and new houses for your tenants?”
i4Housing’s Lail said, “From a cost perspective, generic ERP platforms can appear attractive at first, especially in terms of licensing. But over the lifecycle of the system, the hidden costs of consultancy, integration and maintenance can be higher than those of purpose-built alternatives. Furthermore, lifetime costs tend to be more predictable with housing-specific software.”
NEC’s Hampton said, “The upfront and lifetime costs of ERP systems can be significantly higher than a system built specifically for housing management. While a generic ERP might seem affordable initially, the costs of adapting it to meet your needs quickly add up quickly.
“It’s like buying a basic kitchen – the price might look good at first but once you factor in all the essential fittings and upgrades, the total cost can soar.”
PlaceChangers’ Weise said, “Generic ERP systems often have higher initial investment and configuration costs, especially for adaptation and training. Housing-specific software typically has a lower TCO because it’s more aligned with housing providers’ operational processes straight out-of-the-box and requires less bespoke development.”
Implementation & integration differences
Kick ICT’s Drysdale said, “A housing-specific solution will have an established roll-out tailored to the needs of the housing sector whereas an ERP-based implementation often requires significant customisation to meet the specific needs of housing providers, thereby extending the implementation time and increasing the costs.
“It is vital to select a partner with domain expertise to ensure that the system is designed and built to reflect the needs of a housing provider, without lengthy consulting sessions to bring the partner up to speed on housing requirements.”
Voicescape’s Haynes said, “Generic platforms are usually much better at providing integration mechanisms to avoid enterprise silos. However, they’ll take much longer to develop and implement compared with housing-specific systems, and most organisations will need to become mini-system integration specialists in their own right, usually by expanding an internal team of integration developers.
“However, this raises a broader, sector-level question – is it really efficient for each housing provider to act as its own systems integrator, building out bespoke technology stacks and internal teams, or should the sector be asking whether a more standardised, shared approach would deliver better value, faster outcomes and less duplication of effort?”
FLS’s Squire said, “Implementation and integration are typically faster with housing-specific software because it should be already aligned with housing providers’ existing workflows, APIs and data structures.
“Although generic software is adaptable, it can demand customisation and longer integration phases to meet housing providers’ specific needs, as well as sometimes needing third-party integration tools, data mapping and custom coding.”
PlaceChangers’ Weise said, “Housing-specific platforms generally offer ready-made connectors and sector-aligned workflows, reducing deployment friction. In contrast, generic software requires significant setup and integration efforts to align with housing processes, sector-specific tools and data flows.”
Long-term support, management & maintenance
i4Housing’s Lail said, “Over the long term, housing-specific platforms are typically supported by organisations with an understanding of housing policy changes, compliance demands and communities’ needs. Generic platforms may not respond quickly to sector-specific legislative shifts, leaving housing providers exposed.
“While generic platforms may support broader IT transformation, housing-specific systems deliver faster, safer and more contextual impact, particularly in today’s environment of rising regulatory pressure and tenant scrutiny.”
Plentific’s Shaw said, “Housing-specific software offers more relevant, proactive and sustainable long-term support. Generic software often requires in-house or expensive third-party expertise to manage ongoing updates, custom features and integrations.
“The maintenance and management of existing systems cannot be underestimated, not only from a functionality perspective, but also from a security one. Ensuring your systems are at the forefront of best practices for cyber-security is imperative to maintaining your organisation’s reputation and reducing risk.”
FLS’s Squire said, “When we look at our own best-of-breed solutions, these have been implemented across other sectors and can be deployed in the housing sector within days rather than weeks or months, with a faster end-to-end rollout because they’ve been configured for the software challenge in front of them.
“For example, we’ve spent over a decade building our partner ecosystem in order to automate and integrate specialist processes, making deployment fast and cost-effective compared to the generic alternatives.”
NEC’s Hampton said, “Generic ERP platforms often come with limited flexibility, pre-scheduled upgrades and high support costs. This makes them harder to scale and adapt as a housing provider grows or its needs change.
“A good housing solution is designed from the ground up to evolve with the sector. Housing providers should therefore be able to configure the systems to their own workflows and manage updates internally. This will also help them to better manage the costs associated with organisational change, such as mergers or restructures.”
The effect on housing providers’ future plans
Kick ICT’s Drysdale said, “The optimum solution is to find a hybrid solution which combines the best elements of a generic ERP solution with the housing specialisation of sector-specific providers.
“ERP isn’t a silver bullet for managing housing, and only the very largest housing providers could even consider this as a viable option. Many housing providers have recognised this and have now moved beyond the ERP discussion to focus on what actually works for housing.”
PlaceChangers’ Weise said, “Choosing generic software can open up wider, enterprise-level integration opportunities but risks creating a disconnect from sector-specific innovation.
“Housing providers opting for generic systems must therefore ensure that modern integration frameworks are in place, preferably using open standards such as REST APIs and GraphQL or data exchange formats such as JSON and XML, to remain agile and avoid vendor lock-in.”
Voicescape’s Haynes said, “Large-scale generic software selection, development and deployment projects can often take over a housing provider and it ends up with the IT ‘tail’ wagging the business ‘dog’. Does the housing provider exist to provide a housing service or to deliver IT sophistication?”
Housing Technology would like to thank Jeremy Squire (FLS – Fast Lean Smart), Gursh Lail (i4Housing), Douglas Drysdale (Kick ICT), Trevor Hampton (NEC Software Solutions), Dr. Sebastian Weise (PlaceChangers), Emily Shaw (Plentific) and Gary Haynes (Voicescape)
