Here’s an uncomfortable truth: the title industry has long been held hostage by many of its own technology providers. Despite billions invested in “revolutionary” platforms and “game-changing” solutions, most title agents are forced to live with a reality that forces them to juggle incompatible systems that don’t talk to each other, can’t adapt to real-life workflows and sometimes seem to have been designed by people who’ve never actually processed a title order.
While vendors tout their latest features at industry conferences, agents are back in their offices performing digital gymnastics just to complete basic transactions. It’s time to ask ourselves a hard question: why do agents, of whom precision and reliability is demanded for each order, tolerate technology that delivers neither?
It’s not for a lack of trying on the part of some technology providers. If anything, title professionals are overwhelmed by the constant stream of new solutions promising to revolutionize their operations. The real challenge lies in how these technologies work together—or more accurately, how they don’t. Too many providers build walls around their platforms, forcing agents to choose between the most effective solutions for their own unique operations and seamless workflow integration.
This approach completely ignores how title agencies—especially larger firms – operate in the real world. It’s been said many times before but bears repeating: every title agency has unique needs when it comes to client demands, geographic markets and the regulatory schemes that govern them and product mix.
Today’s agent doesn’t rely on a single, monolithic platform. They can’t. They need flexible technology that allows them to combine the most effective tools for them based on their operational requirements. A commercial title shop serving institutional lenders has vastly different needs than a boutique operation focused on residential refinances, yet both deserve technology stacks tailored to their specific requirements.
The next generation of successful technology providers is recognizing this reality by prioritizing interoperability over platform monopolization. Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, they’re focusing on doing their core functions exceptionally well while making it effortless for agents to integrate complementary solutions. That means robust APIs, standardized data formats and genuine collaboration with other technology vendors rather than viewing them as competitors to be defeated.
Consider the difference in user experience. In the old model, an agent might use one system for order management, another for title searches and a third for doc prep. Moving data between these systems, however, all too often means manual entry, file exports or complex workarounds that invite errors and consume valuable time. When problems arise, each vendor points fingers at the others, leaving agents to play technology detective while their clients wait for answers. Of course, a customized integration may become available…for a price and if they’re willing to wait weeks or months.
Fortunately, that’s already starting to change. Progressive technology providers have already started designing their solutions to communicate seamlessly with other platforms, sharing data automatically and maintaining synchronization across the entire workflow without the need for customized integrations. In the not-too-distant future, when issues occur, integrated systems will provide clear visibility into where problems originate and vendors will take collective responsibility for resolution rather than hiding behind platform boundaries.
The long ignored need for collaboration is also finally being extended to the product development process. Leading technology providers are abandoning the “build it and they’ll adapt” mentality in favor of continuous and routinely solicited feedback that puts agent insights at the center of innovation. They understand that the most elegant code is worthless if it doesn’t solve real problems in real workflows. Title agents tend to be practical problem solvers. And when the production system is the problem…?
The next generation of tech providers is already establishing formal advisory boards (which meet more than once a year) designed to provide diverse agent perspectives, conduct regular user research sessions and maintain transparent roadmaps that reflect client priorities rather than internal engineering preferences. Most importantly, they’re seeing feature requests not as interruptions to their development plans, but rather, as valuable intelligence about market needs and operational pain points. Nobody understands a title agent’s unique needs other than that title agent.
The market is already rewarding providers who embrace these principles. Agents are increasingly evaluating potential tech partners not just on feature lists, but on integration capabilities and responsiveness to feedback. They’re asking pointed questions (as title agents tend to do): Does this solution play well with our existing tools? How do you incorporate client input into your development process? Can we customize workflows without breaking compatibility with other systems?
Technology providers who answer these questions convincingly (and authentically) are winning market share from competitors still clinging to proprietary, closed-system approaches. They’re building deeper client relationships based on genuine partnership rather than vendor lock-in. Most importantly, they’re helping title agents deliver better service to their own clients by removing technological friction from critical processes.
The future of title technology lies not in building bigger walls around individual platforms but in creating bridges between the solutions that best fit each client’s unique needs. Providers who understand this shift — and act on it — will thrive in an increasingly competitive market where client success determines vendor success.
John Freyer, Jr. is the President & Co-Founder of Settlor, an independent national technology provider. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
English (US) · 