Title companies evaluating automation solutions face a fundamental strategic decision that extends beyond technology selection: whether to own the code that runs their operations or pay ongoing transactional fees. Jimmy Lewis, Co-Founder and CEO of TrueFocus Automation, has observed this ownership question becoming the deciding factor in automation deals, particularly with larger title operations concerned about long-term costs and data security.
The traditional automation vendor model follows the Software as a Service approach where vendors retain ownership of solutions and charge ongoing transactional fees based on usage volume. For title companies processing thousands of orders monthly, these fees compound quickly. A bot costing $2.50 per transaction becomes $60,000 annually at 2,000 monthly orders, according to industry calculations.
TrueFocus Automation offers both models through their platform at https://truefocusautomation.com. Clients can choose the SaaS approach with lower upfront costs, or pay approximately $9,500 per bot for full ownership rights. Sridhar Loganathan, TrueFocus's COO and Co-Founder, notes that ownership conversations typically surface after companies have been using automation for a while, with pricing typically settling between 1.5 to 2 times the original build price.
The financial implications become significant at scale. A title company processing 50,000 orders annually might pay $25,000 in transactional fees for a single automation. After two years, they've paid more than the ownership model would have cost, with no equity in the solution. This calculation drives many companies toward ownership as their automation usage grows.
Beyond cost considerations, ownership addresses critical data security concerns in an industry handling sensitive financial information, social security numbers, and confidential transaction details. Some operations prefer keeping automation infrastructure entirely in-house rather than routing data through vendor-controlled systems, even with proper security protocols in place.
The ownership model also provides greater control over maintenance timing and customization. With SaaS solutions, vendors control when updates deploy and how customizations get prioritized. Owned solutions allow companies to schedule changes around their own operational calendars and business priorities, providing operational independence.
Lewis notes distinct patterns in adoption approaches. Mid-market title companies typically start with SaaS models to minimize upfront investment, then convert to ownership once they've validated the return on investment. Larger operations often skip directly to ownership models, viewing automation as infrastructure investment rather than recurring operational expense.
This decision reflects broader questions about technology strategy within the title industry. Companies treating automation as a service prioritize flexibility and minimal capital expenditure. Those viewing it as infrastructure investment prioritize long-term cost control and operational independence. The choice represents different philosophies about how technology should support business operations.
For title insurance automation specifically, the stakes are higher than typical business process automation. These bots don't just improve efficiency; they directly impact whether policies get issued accurately and on time. This criticality makes the ownership question more than a financial calculation. It becomes a question of operational control over mission-critical systems that affect core business functions and regulatory compliance.
The industry's movement toward automation represents a significant shift in how title operations manage increasing transaction volumes while maintaining accuracy and security standards. As companies implement these solutions, the ownership decision will continue to shape their operational flexibility, cost structure, and competitive positioning in an evolving market.
