We recently sat down with Jen Jackson from Alpha Alternatives and Dave Gilligan from Atominvest to explore how leading fund managers are approaching the design of their investor experience technology stack. As investor expectations evolve and LP profiles diversify, GPs are rethinking what flexibility, scalability, and alignment really look like. In this conversation, Jen and Dave share practical guidance on how to define your north star, avoid common implementation pitfalls, and build a roadmap that supports long-term growth. If you're evaluating or reimagining your IR tech stack, their insights offer a valuable starting point.

Designing an investor experience technology stack sounds daunting. Where should fund managers start?

‍

Jen Jackson, Alpha Alternatives:
“Having thoughtful discussions and alignment across the organization on what you are trying to achieve is key to success. Develop a ‘north star’ statement — a single sentence that describes your ideal investor experience. Socialize it and gather feedback across all impacted stakeholder groups, including Fundraising, Investor Relations, Legal, Compliance, Tax, and Accounting/Finance. Ensuring everyone is aligned to the vision at the outset will be critical when it comes time for more detailed design discussions.

‍

Once you have defined your north star and set clear goals and objectives, you need to understand the current state of your investor experience and determine how far off your ideal future state you are. It can feel tedious, but documenting the current state ensures you have an accurate baseline to use when defining your roadmap to get to that future state.”

‍

Dave Gilligan, Atominvest:
“I completely agree, Jen. Creating a roadmap is an important step where you begin to transition from the theoretical to the tangible. The first step should be to prioritize the projects that will bring you to your future state. This should be done purely from the perspective of what’s most important to the business — not influenced by factors like resourcing, budget, or headcount.

‍

Only once you have a pure prioritization of initiatives should you begin sequencing them in a roadmap. That’s when you introduce cost, budget, resourcing, and other constraints into the equation. By starting with business priorities, you can then properly allocate resources and make strategic decisions around implementation.”

‍

How should fund managers think about designing their investor experience when they have a variety of LP personas to service?

‍

Dave:
“One of the golden rules of sales is to ‘know your customers.’ This holds true for GPs — and I don’t mean from a compliance and regulatory perspective. GPs work hard to understand their clients’ needs, and this should show through in how they design the investor experience.

‍

Traditionally, LPs fit into two buckets: institutional or individual. More recently, retail and wealth clients have made a push into private markets, which leaves GPs with an increasingly complex matrix of LP types to manage. By knowing your clients and their preferences for receiving and digesting information, GPs can provide an experience that feels tailored to their needs.”

‍

Jen:
“This is an important consideration when designing your investor experience because it determines the level of flexibility your technology solutions require. For example, your institutional clients may not care about flashy dashboards — they just want a data extract they can easily feed into their own systems.

‍

Designing an experience that adapts to an investor’s profile means identifying tools that offer a high degree of flexibility.”

‍

Everyone wants flexible technology without tons of customization. How do you define flexibility in software terms?

‍

Dave:
“Flexibility equals time. To understand how flexible a platform is, you need to know the difference between configuration and customization. Configuration is the ability to implement or update the platform with little to no development effort. This means the platform was designed to solve most use cases out-of-the-box.

‍

Customization, on the other hand, means the platform was built to solve a fixed set of use cases — and anything beyond that typically requires additional coding.”

‍

Jen:
“It’s not uncommon for a software provider to overstate how flexible their solution really is. Often, once you get into the details, it relies heavily on custom development, which can be slow and costly.

‍

Designing your investor experience around truly flexible tools means you’ll spend less time filling gaps and more time delivering value.”

‍

Dave:
“Flexibility also means time savings for LPs. Tools that support self-service functionality — configurable to a GP’s unique workflows — can allow LPs to manage contact updates, wire instructions, transfers, and more from a single interface.”

‍

Change is hard. How should fund managers factor in adoption risk when designing their investor experience?

‍

Jen:
“Future-proofing your technology stack is essential. Switching costs can be high for investor-facing technologies — not just financially, but relationally. LPs don’t want a constantly changing experience with a rotating set of platforms. Continuity and consistency are key.”

‍

Dave:
“The platform should be built — and priced — to scale with your firm. That often means finding a vendor that meets your long-term needs, even if you take a phased approach to adoption. Understanding pricing models is also critical. Be clear on what the 3-, 5-, or 10-year costs look like based on your growth projections.”

‍

Jen:
“I’d add that you should understand how the vendor’s product and engineering teams operate. Look for platforms built on modern infrastructure like open APIs and cloud hosting — but also evaluate their velocity and responsiveness.

‍

What does their product roadmap look like? How often do they release updates? How is client feedback incorporated? Vendors who move quickly and build with their clients tend to deliver the most value and longevity.”

‍

Beyond the obvious, what are some overlooked cost considerations in building your investor experience stack?

‍

Jen:
“Firms should review whether they can allocate tech costs to their funds. LPAs often include language specifying what’s a chargeable expense. If you can pass through investor experience technology costs, it makes internal approval much easier.

‍

Also, look for modular licensing and flexible pricing models — it’ll make fund cost allocation cleaner.”

‍

Dave:
“We’re seeing more firms look at investor experience technology as a driver of operational alpha. The right platform can reduce service provider costs, help scale AUM without increasing headcount, and simplify your tech stack — all of which translate to measurable savings.

‍

That’s why the planning phase is so important. Understanding your current pain points helps you quantify where alpha can be created.”

‍

Some firms choose to build rather than buy their technology. What’s your advice for making that decision?

‍

Jen:
“Firms should objectively assess their capabilities, priorities, and long-term goals. Building may make sense if you have deep technical resources and constantly evolving needs.

‍

But remember — when you build, you own it all. Maintenance, updates, support, future-proofing. It’s not a project; it’s a long-term product commitment. Buying, by contrast, can offer quicker deployment, predictable costs, and continuous innovation. That allows internal teams to stay focused on core business goals.”

‍

Dave:
“One key factor is resourcing. Do you have strong internal IT and development teams ready to take this on? Or would you need to rely on an implementation partner?”

‍

Jen:
“That’s a great point. Firms also need a clear view of the total cost of ownership. Builds often take longer and cost more than expected — and recurring product maintenance costs are frequently underestimated. Buying gives you more cost predictability because you’re outsourcing product ownership to a vendor.”

‍

Any final thoughts?

‍

Jen:
“Designing your ideal investor experience stack can feel overwhelming. Partnering with experts who’ve done this before — from advisory through implementation — makes all the difference.”

‍

Dave:
“My final advice: don’t wait. The industry is evolving quickly, and this is becoming a critical focus area for GPs. Keeping pace means starting the conversation now.”

‍

Written by: Dave Gilligan, Atominvest and Jen Jackson, Alpha Alternatives

‍