Centralization for Third-Party Management
There’s a big difference between talking about centralization and actually implementing it—especially when you don’t own the assets. While many in the multifamily industry have been chasing operational efficiency through centralized models, few have tackled the complexity of doing it under third-party management. That’s exactly what Dom Beveridge, Cara Athmann, and Heidi Turner came together to address, pulling back the curtain on what it really takes to balance innovation, owner expectations, and frontline realities.
Unlike vertically integrated owner-operators, third-party managers have limited control over staffing models and operational changes. Every property operates under a unique management agreement, and any significant shift—like introducing shared leasing or centralized maintenance—must be approved by the owner. That creates natural friction, inertia, and often, missed opportunities. But the panel made clear: these challenges aren’t deal-breakers. They’re design constraints—and they can be navigated.
A foundational insight was that centralization in third-party management isn’t a plug-and-play system. It’s a customized framework—one that must flex around location, asset type, tech readiness, and the owner’s strategic goals. Success hinges on alignment, not just ambition. It requires communicating the “why” of centralization clearly to owners: whether it’s reducing operational costs, improving service quality, or creating more flexible career paths for employees.
COVID served as a major catalyst for centralization strategies across the board. The pandemic revealed longstanding staffing vulnerabilities—especially in maintenance and leasing—and accelerated the shift toward more scalable, remote-friendly models. Operators had to move quickly, but in third-party management, speed had to be matched with diplomacy. Owners needed to be brought along, not just told what’s changing.
One of the session’s standout ideas was the emphasis on “designing around the problem.” Rather than leading with a pre-set solution, operators should identify friction points—like maintenance delays or inconsistent leasing execution—and then evaluate whether centralization can solve them. The approach needs to be flexible: maybe it starts with centralizing maintenance in a tight labor market or consolidating leasing operations in a tech-enabled environment.
Technology was discussed not as the driver, but as the enabler. With today’s tech stack far more accessible and modular than it was even a decade ago, smaller operators now have tools that previously only REITs could afford. This democratization of tech opens up centralization to a much broader segment of the market—but only if there’s a clear operational strategy behind it. Technology alone doesn’t solve for turnover, training gaps, or owner buy-in.
The panel also addressed organizational change and employee experience. Centralization isn’t just about moving work off-site—it’s about redefining job roles. When done well, it allows team members to specialize, removing the pressure to be experts in everything from resident services to budgeting systems. That can create more attractive career paths and help retain talent. But it also means investing in change management, training, and internal communication.
Student housing emerged as a compelling case study. Because student portfolios often span multiple states and require seasonal staffing models, they’ve long been a proving ground for centralized operations. The lessons learned there—particularly around shared services and cross-property coordination—are increasingly applicable to conventional multifamily, especially in urban infill environments.
Another key theme was owner engagement. Many owners are curious about centralization but unsure how it will impact asset performance, service quality, or resident satisfaction. Operators must build the business case with data: showing how centralized models can maintain or even improve KPIs, reduce turnover, and create better resident experiences. Owners also want to understand the contingency plan—what happens if centralization doesn’t work at a particular site or for a specific function?
Ultimately, the panel reinforced that centralization for third-party managers isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s a toolkit. Success comes from identifying the right tools for the right problems—and having the communication skills, operational discipline, and stakeholder trust to implement them thoughtfully.
The conversation closed with optimism: despite the complexities, centralization is not only feasible in third-party management—it may become essential. As costs rise and staffing challenges persist, scalable, tech-enabled operating models are becoming more attractive to both operators and owners. Those who embrace flexibility, prioritize partnership, and stay grounded in solving real problems will lead the way forward.
Here is the replay:
Here is the PowerPoint: