We find where time and money leak out of your workflows, automate the work that should never have been manual, and give your team back the hours. What matters is where those hours go. Real estate is still decided by judgment, reputation, and trust, and that is the part worth protecting.
In mid-2023, fewer than 5% of real estate firms had started an AI pilot. Today almost all of them have. The results have not followed.
JLL 2025 Global Real Estate Technology Survey, 1,500+ senior decision-makers across 16 markets.
The gap is not access to the technology. Everyone has the same models. The gap is knowing which work is actually worth changing, how it fits the way a real estate firm operates, whose data can safely go near it, and what has to happen for anyone to still be using it a year later.
Every engagement starts the same way: finding where time and money leak out of the work. Automating that work returns hours and lifts output. But the hours are not the point. What matters is where they go.
Most firms start with the first. The second is where the durable advantage is, and almost nobody is doing it yet.
The build is the easy part. Any competent consultant can ship a tool. What determines whether it survives is everything around it: whether it fits how your acquisitions team actually works, whether it connects to the systems you already pay for, whether your data can safely go near it, and whether anyone still opens it ninety days later.
That is a real estate problem before it is a technology problem. Knowing the difference between a workflow worth automating and one that only looks inefficient takes having run the function, not having read about it.
Every firm is sitting on decades of leases, memos, deal files, and construction records that no system can read. Roughly 80% of enterprise data lives outside of databases entirely, in PDFs, scans, and email threads.
Structured properly, that stops being storage and becomes an asset: a private record of how your firm underwrites, what it has already seen, and what it learned the hard way. The models are commoditizing. What you point them at is not. A firm that spends the next three years organizing its own history ends up with something a competitor cannot buy.
Every phase of the asset lifecycle has work that is repetitive, document-heavy, and mostly pattern matching. Pulling the terms that matter out of a single complex lease runs four to eight hours. Multiply that across a portfolio and the leak is obvious. Engagements can start anywhere.
The two-week diligence sprint, compressed into something your analyst can finish before the call.
Paper-heavy, deadline-driven, and full of cross-checks a person should not be doing manually.
The recurring work that quietly consumes a small team every single month.
Short, defined phases with something to show at the end of each. No twelve-week discovery that produces a deck.
Time with your team, mapping where the hours actually go and what each one costs you. Everything gets ranked by value and feasibility. Most of the list will be worth doing. Some of it won't, and you will hear that first.
Pick one or two, build them, and run them against your real files. Measured against how the work gets done today. If it does not clearly beat the current process, it does not ship.
The part everyone skips. Training, documentation, and staying close enough to catch it when your team quietly reverts to the old way under deadline. Adoption is the deliverable, not the tool.
It was better ones. Type-two fun applies here too: the work that is demanding in the moment and obvious in hindsight is the work that pays.
A model can draft the memo and summarize the call. It cannot sit across the table from a seller who is not ready to sell. It cannot carry a decade of reputation into a room. It cannot be the person a partner calls first when a deal goes sideways at ten at night. Those are still what real estate turns on, and they are the first things to get squeezed when a good team is buried in mechanical work.
Not with the tool, and not with the model. The question is always what your team spends Thursday afternoon doing, and whether any of it should be automatic.
Sometimes the honest answer is a process change, a template, or software that already exists. You will get that answer even though it is worth less to us.
No black boxes, no lock-in you did not choose, no dependency you could not walk away from. You should always understand what was built and why.
The tools shift every few months. Your business changes faster than that. And adoption quietly decays the first time someone is under deadline and reverts to the spreadsheet they trust. Anyone who promises to build it, hand it over, and disappear is selling a demo.
What the ongoing work looks like is deliberately small: keeping what we built working as the tools change, getting new people onto it, extending into the next function when you are ready, and keeping your data organized as it accumulates.
Most firms cannot justify a full-time head of technology and would not know what to do with one if they hired it. What they need is someone senior who owns this part-time and is accountable for whether it actually gets used.
And if your team is running it well and nothing is changing, you should stop paying us. You will hear that from us first.
Type Two Systems is the technology practice of Type Two Capital Partners, a real estate advisory and investment firm founded by Tyler Morandi in Crested Butte, Colorado.
Twelve years in real estate development and investment, more than $1 billion in aggregate capitalization, and over a million square feet delivered. Vice President at a Boston institutional development and advisory firm, then Chief Development Officer of a multi-state outdoor hospitality platform.
Which means the diligence sprints, the RFI backlogs, and the monthly reporting scramble are not hypotheticals here. Connecting the business function to what the technology can actually do requires having sat in both seats. That is rarer than it should be.
See the real estate practiceA discovery call is thirty minutes and free. Bring one workflow that frustrates you and we will talk through whether it is actually worth automating. If it isn't, you will hear that on the call.