Due Diligence

Why Manual DDQ Tracking Doesn’t Scale with ODD Teams

How manual DDQ tracking creates hidden friction for ODD teams as volumes grow and why spreadsheet-based processes struggle to scale.

Dasseti
Feb 2, 2026
Updated: Feb 12, 2026
Due Diligence

Subscribe

Subscribe

Manually tracking DDQs in spreadsheets, inboxes, and shared folders works at first. But over time, as volumes grow and cycles begin to overlap, it starts to feel more chaotic than it should. It’s rarely framed as a problem - it’s just seen as how DDQs are run. It doesn't have to be this way.

How manual DDQ tracking usually starts

In most teams, tracking begins with a simple setup. A spreadsheet logs requests and deadlines. Email is used for manager communication and internal reviews. Follow-ups are handled manually, and status is updated when someone remembers to do it.

This approach holds together when the number of managers is limited and reviews don’t overlap too much. One or two people usually have enough context to keep things moving. That’s why many teams stick with it longer than they probably should.

Where manual DDQ tracking breaks down as ODD teams scale

As coverage expands and DDQs repeat, small gaps start to appear. Simple questions take longer to answer. Someone asks who has responded, what’s overdue, or where a review is stuck, and the answer requires checking several places.

Trackers are often slightly out of date. Follow-ups are driven by individual inboxes rather than the process itself. Reviews can stall without being obvious to the wider team, and reporting becomes something that has to be rebuilt manually each time it’s needed.

Why this friction is often accepted as normal

Most teams don’t step back and redesign how tracking works. They adapt around it. The spreadsheet gets more columns. More reminders are sent. More internal check-ins appear in the calendar.

Over time, this friction starts to feel inevitable. DDQs are assumed to be messy, and chasing is assumed to be part of the job. But with the right systems in place, it doesn’t have to be.

What changes when ODD teams move away from manual DDQ tracking

When teams move away from spreadsheet-led tracking, it’s usually part of a broader change in how DDQs are run day to day.

Rather than layering tracking on top of email and individual inboxes, the work is centralized. DDQs live in one place, follow-ups and reviews have clear ownership, and status reflects what’s actually happening without relying on manual updates or reminders.

The work itself doesn’t disappear - but the constant checking and chasing does.

How centralized DDQ tracking changes day-to-day ODD workflows

When tracking is built into the workflow, teams spend less time confirming status and more time moving work forward. Follow-ups happen earlier rather than reactively. Reviews are less likely to stall quietly, and fewer things slip without anyone noticing.

Progress is visible at a glance, which frees teams to spend less time chasing updates and more time on the analysis.

How one allocator streamlined its DDQ process

SLC Management is the institutional asset management division of Sun Life, overseeing external and affiliated managers across its global business units. Within this, the International Investment Center (IIC) acts as an internal investment consultant, responsible for manager selection, monitoring, and ESG integration across more than 100 managers worldwide.

As volumes increased and processes became more complex, the team turned to Dasseti COLLECT to centralize workflows, improve consistency, and lay the foundation for AI-powered insights, all without increasing operational burden.

Hear directly from SLC Management below.

 

Tracking DDQs doesn’t have to be this hard

DDQ tracking breaks quietly, which is why it’s often tolerated. But teams don’t have to accept it as part of the job.

Discover 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