Due Diligence

How Manual ODD Tracking Creates Oversight Visibility Gaps

How fragmented ODD tracking creates oversight visibility gaps, and how embedding status inside the workflow improves clarity, governance, and control.

Dasseti
Feb 27, 2026
Due Diligence

Subscribe

Subscribe

When ODD processes are managed through inboxes and spreadsheets, it is usually the people closest to the work who hold most of the context.

The tracker may show that a questionnaire is “in progress,” but someone on the team knows that the response is substantively complete and only waiting on a minor clarification. A deadline may appear unchanged, but someone remembers that an extension was agreed informally. A review may be marked as complete, but the nuance behind that completion sits in prior email threads or internal discussion.

Whilst the system records activity, the understanding of that activity lives with individuals.

From manageable volume to layered complexity

As oversight expands across managers and strategies, the effort required to keep tracking aligned with reality grows.

As cycles begin to overlap and stakeholders need clearer visibility into progress, status becomes something that must be communicated frequently, not just maintained internally.

Tracking now has to do more than record deadlines. It must provide immediate visibility into what has been sent, received, reviewed, and outstanding.

Manual systems are not built for that level of embedded visibility, and require continuous manual updates to stay aligned with live activity.

When spreadsheet-based ODD tracking limits visibility and scalability

Spreadsheet-led tracking relies on continuous manual reconciliation, meaning that as oversight expands and becomes more complex, the volume of context held by individuals also expands.

The team are still able to answer status questions, but those answers increasingly rely on explanation rather than direct observation. Context lives in conversations and experience rather than within the tracking structure itself.

Over time, this manual tracking absorbs more attention than intended, concentrating knowledge with individuals and making clarity dependent on their availability.

And so, manual ODD tracking begins to weaken institutional visibility. The effort required to keep the tracker aligned with reality grows alongside the complexity of the workload, eventually requiring nearly as much coordination as conducting the review itself.

Making operational due diligence oversight visible

When manual tracking begins to obscure oversight visibility, the answer is not more discipline or more detailed spreadsheets. It is a change in where tracking actually happens.

Platforms like Dasseti COLLECT bring oversight into the workflow itself. Questionnaires, documents, follow-ups, and reviews sit in one connected system, where status reflects real activity rather than manual updates. What has been sent, received, reviewed, or returned is visible without cross-checking inboxes or reconciling separate trackers. Ownership is clear. Outstanding items are transparent.

If your team is spending increasing time reconciling trackers rather than reviewing risk, it may be time to rethink how tracking is structured.

Explore how allocator teams are centralizing ODD workflows with Dasseti COLLECT.

 

Similar posts

Get notified about new investment sector insights

Stay up to date with the latest insights from the Dasseti team.

 

Sign up for blog alerts