I recently watched a strata committee spend 45 minutes debating whether to install smart parcel lockers in their building’s lobby. The lockers would’ve cost $8,000, solved ongoing package theft issues, and reduced liability for the concierge team handling deliveries.

The committee eventually voted it down 4-3. The deciding vote came from an owner who said they “didn’t trust the technology” and preferred the existing system where parcels pile up behind the concierge desk until residents collect them.

This is strata committee technology decision-making in 2026. It’s genuinely bewildering.

Why Strata Committees Resist Technology

There’s a structural problem with how strata committees evaluate technology. Most committee members are volunteers with zero background in building management, technology implementation, or capital planning. They’re elected based on willingness to serve and ability to show up to quarterly meetings.

You end up with decisions about $50,000 building automation systems being made by people whose technology expertise peaks at using Gmail. That’s not a criticism of committee members—they’re doing their best. It’s a criticism of expecting untrained volunteers to make informed decisions about complex building technology.

The incentive structure also works against technology adoption. If a committee approves a tech upgrade and something goes wrong, they’ll hear complaints for years. If they maintain the status quo and things stay merely mediocre, nobody complains because mediocre is the baseline expectation.

So the rational choice for committee members is conservative rejection of anything new. Why take personal risk for uncertain benefits?

The Proposals That Get Rejected

Based on conversations with strata managers across Sydney, these are the most commonly rejected technology upgrades:

Building access systems: Transitioning from physical keys to digital access (smartphone apps, fobs with cloud management) gets rejected constantly, usually over “security concerns” that don’t withstand technical scrutiny. Physical keys that can be copied at any hardware store for $8 are somehow seen as more secure than encrypted digital credentials.

Energy monitoring: Installing submetering or energy monitoring systems to track power consumption and identify efficiency opportunities gets rejected because committees worry about privacy (monitoring reveals when apartments are occupied) or don’t believe the savings projections.

Parking management: Automated parking systems, license plate recognition for visitor parking, or even just parking space sensors get rejected over implementation complexity or concerns about “surveillance.”

Lift modernization: Upgrading lift control systems to modern equipment that’s more efficient and easier to maintain gets deferred for years because the existing lifts “still work” even when maintenance costs are climbing and parts availability is declining.

Communication systems: Moving committee communications from email chains to proper strata management platforms with document storage, voting tools, and maintenance request tracking gets rejected because “email works fine.”

What Actually Works

The proposals that successfully get through strata committees have specific characteristics:

Solve immediate, visible problems. Abstract efficiency gains or future cost avoidance don’t resonate. But “we’ve had three flooding incidents from washing machine hose failures and water leak sensors would’ve prevented all of them” gets approval.

Have clear payback periods. “This will save money” is vague. “This costs $15,000 installed and will reduce electricity bills by $4,200 per year, paying for itself in 3.6 years” is concrete.

Come with strata manager endorsement. If the building’s strata manager strongly recommends something and provides detailed implementation plans, committees are much more likely to approve it. If it’s driven by an individual owner’s suggestion, it faces more skepticism.

Start small and prove value. Pilot programs work better than building-wide rollouts. “Let’s install smart water meters on five apartments to measure savings over six months, then decide on full building deployment” is more palatable than “let’s spend $85,000 metering the entire building.”

The Case Study: Video Intercom Upgrade

I know a building in North Sydney that spent 18 months getting committee approval to upgrade their video intercom system from 1990s technology to a modern IP-based system with smartphone integration.

The existing system was failing regularly. Repair costs in 2024 totaled $11,000 because replacement parts had to be sourced from Europe at premium prices. The manufacturer discontinued the product line in 2019.

Despite this, the upgrade faced resistance. Concerns included:

• “What if the new system doesn’t work?”
• “My elderly parents visit and won’t know how to use smartphone apps”
• “We just fixed the old system last year, why replace it now?”
• “Can’t we just keep repairing it until it completely dies?”

What finally got it approved was a combination of:

1. The strata manager providing three competitive quotes with detailed technical comparisons
2. A committee member’s apartment buzzer failing the week before a vote, making the problem personal
3. The installer offering a 7-year warranty versus “no warranty on obsolete equipment repairs”
4. Demonstrating that the new system had backup intercom functionality for visitors without smartphones

The upgrade happened in February 2026. It’s working well. And the same committee that resisted it for 18 months now acts like it was their idea.

The Role of Technology Vendors

Vendors selling building technology to strata committees need to understand they’re not selling to technical buyers. Standard enterprise sales approaches don’t work.

What works better:

• Simple, jargon-free explanations that committee members can understand and repeat to owners
• Focus on risk reduction (prevent flooding, reduce theft, avoid equipment failure) not efficiency gains
• Clear total cost of ownership including maintenance, not just upfront pricing
• References from similar buildings with similar demographics
• Offering trial periods or staged implementations

The vendors who succeed in strata are the ones who realize they’re selling to cautious volunteers spending other people’s money, not technical decision-makers with capital budgets.

What Agents Should Know

If you’re selling or managing apartments in strata buildings, understanding the committee’s technology posture matters.

Buildings with functional, modern building systems are easier to sell and command premiums. Buildings with obsolete, failing systems face deferred maintenance costs that eventually hit owners through special levies.

When you’re evaluating a building, look at:

• Building access systems (physical keys or modern digital access?)
• Lift age and modernization status
• CCTV coverage and monitoring
• Intercom technology
• Energy management systems
• Communications infrastructure

Buildings that have successfully implemented modern systems usually have competent strata committees and proactive managers. That’s valuable. Buildings still running 20-year-old systems that “still work” are probably facing deferred maintenance challenges.

The Long View

Strata committee resistance to technology isn’t going away. The structural incentives favor caution and inertia. But the gap between what technology can deliver and what committees are willing to approve is widening, and eventually that creates problems.

Buildings that successfully adopt appropriate technology will operate more efficiently, cost less to maintain, and provide better amenity to residents. Buildings that resist will face climbing operating costs and declining competitiveness.

The challenge is that strata committees make decisions on 1-3 year timeframes (their typical tenure) while building infrastructure decisions play out over 10-20 years. That misalignment causes chronic underinvestment in technology that would deliver long-term value.

I don’t have a solution to this. But understanding the dynamics helps explain why getting smart parcel lockers installed takes 18 months and costs more in committee meeting time than the actual hardware.

Linda Powers is a licensed real estate agent specializing in PropTech applications across Sydney’s residential market.