Advisory firms are being bombarded with new AI tools and other technology developments that could impact their core technology stacks and their businesses. They must keep pace through active decision-making, including reevaluating vendors, reassessing tech stacks and determining when and if a new tool is needed.
To learn how advisors can best approach keeping their tech stacks up to date, we spoke with Liam Hanlon, Vice President, Strategy & Head of Insights at Jump, an AI platform provider for advisors.
WSR asked Hanlon whether it still makes sense for advisory firms to reassess their CRM and core tech stacks once a quarter, what a more effective tech evaluation cadence looks like in practice, how often firms should re-evaluate their vendors, what the right framework is for determining whether tools are solving specific problems and how firms can stay ahead of AI evolution without constantly chasing every new capability.
His responses follow.
WSR: Many firms only reassess their CRM and core tech stack once a quarter. Has this cadence become outdated? Does it create risk for firms that stick with it?
Hanlon: Quarterly reassessment is not inherently outdated. For many large firms, reviewing the entire CRM and core technology stack every quarter would actually be unusually frequent and disruptive. The risk comes from confusing formal reassessment with market awareness.
Firms should continuously monitor developments in wealth technology, AI, regulation, and advisor behavior, while reserving deeper vendor reviews for defined checkpoints or when performance signals a problem. A quarterly or semiannual review of adoption, utilization, service quality, roadmap progress and business outcomes is generally more practical than repeatedly reopening every vendor decision.
Firms that fail to monitor the market between formal reviews risk missing meaningful innovation. However, firms that constantly reconsider their stack create change fatigue, integration costs and distraction. The goal is not constant replacement. It is continuous awareness, disciplined measurement and targeted action when evidence shows a gap.
WSR: What does a more effective tech evaluation cadence look like in practice? How often should firms be reevaluating their vendors? How does this translate into better outcomes for both advisors and their clients?
Hanlon: A more effective cadence separates ongoing performance management from formal vendor reevaluation. Firms should review adoption, utilization, service levels, roadmap progress and measurable outcomes with strategic vendors at least quarterly. The vendor should own much of that reporting through structured business reviews.
Formal reevaluation should be triggered by evidence: low adoption, poor workflow fit, weak support, rising costs, unmet roadmap commitments or a newly important capability gap. Reassessing every vendor every month would become a full-time job and rarely improves decision-making. Instead, firms should maintain a clear scorecard and investigate where results fall short.
Reassessing every vendor every month would become a full-time job and rarely improves decision-making.
This approach improves outcomes because advisors spend less time adapting to unnecessary technology changes, while firms can focus investment and enablement where it will matter most. Clients benefit through better advisor productivity, more consistent service, faster follow-up and technology that supports the relationship rather than interrupting it.
WSR: When a firm is assessing its tech stack, what is the right framework for determining whether tools are solving specific, designated problems? What is the biggest mistake you see firms make when it comes to evaluating how a specific AI tool is actually being deployed day-to-day, versus how it was pitched?
Hanlon: Start with a capability-gap assessment, not a vendor demo. Define the current state, the target state and the specific jobs advisors need to perform that they cannot perform effectively today. Then evaluate how far each solution moves the firm toward that target.
Adoption, utilization, workflow fit, user experience, security, architecture, scalability, support, roadmap, commercial structure, company viability and measurable ROI should all be considered alongside functionality.
The biggest mistake firms make with AI is evaluating the product as it was pitched rather than how it is actually used. Feature comparisons and polished demos can obscure whether advisors incorporate the tool into daily workflows, whether outputs are trusted and whether the tool changes behavior or outcomes. Firms should examine real usage data, interview users, observe workflows and measure whether the technology is solving the designated problem at scale.
WSR: How should firms think about staying ahead of AI evolution without constantly chasing every new capability that comes to market?
Hanlon: Firms should anchor their AI strategy to problems and jobs to be done, not to the volume of new capabilities entering the market. Once leadership has defined the outcomes it needs to improve, new tools become easier to assess: either they advance those priorities or they do not.
Once leadership has defined the outcomes it needs to improve, new tools become easier to assess.
Firms should also favor partners with the architecture, roadmap and operating model to solve multiple related problems over time. A narrow capability purchased simply because it is newly possible will often be absorbed into a broader platform.
The strongest partner may begin with one use case, but it should have the foundation to expand into a unified system supporting multiple advisor workflows. This does not mean betting blindly on a vendor’s vision. Firms should validate delivery, integration, security, adoption and roadmap execution. In a fast-moving market, strong partners are often more durable than isolated features.
Jeff Berman, Contributing Editor and Reporter at Wealth Solutions Report, can be reached at jeff.berman@wealthsolutionsreport.com.
