From back office to strategic advantage: Scaling private markets operations

Ahead of SuperReturn CFO/COO North America, we spoke with Jameson Greenfield, CFO at the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, to explore how private markets operations are evolving. From data cohesion and automation to the limits of real‑time transparency and the enduring role of human judgment, Greenfield offers a pragmatic LP perspective on what’s changing and what still needs to catch up.

Q: Private markets have scaled faster than most operational infrastructures were built for. Where are you seeing the greatest pressure points today, and where are firms gaining a real competitive edge through operations?

A: The biggest pressure points are still around data cohesion, process handoffs, and the ability to generate economies of scale. Many private markets programs have grown significantly, but the supporting operating model continues to rely on manual workarounds across capital activity, cash forecasting, valuations, fee measurement, investor reporting, and performance analytics.

Inconsistent data delivery creates inefficiencies that often require manual intervention, placing a premium on the control environment. These challenges create operational drag when teams need speed, consistency, and control to support investment decision‑making.

While these issues are more acute in private markets than in public markets operations, there are encouraging developments underway. The industry is increasingly using technology to automate processes and distil large volumes of data into more consumable and comparable views. At SWIB, we’ve invested significant time and energy in leveraging our enterprise AI environment to generate actionable insights, and we’re focused on extending those capabilities further to streamline operations.

As these improvements continue, I believe private markets' operating models can increasingly resemble those used in public markets, where straight‑through processing and systemic controls are pervasive. Firms gain an edge by positioning operations as an integrated capability rather than a back‑office utility. Standardised data models, reduced manual touchpoints, and validated workflows, from source data through accounting, performance, and reporting, can finally generate the scaling efficiencies this asset class has lacked for decades.

“Firms gain a real edge when operations are positioned as an integrated capability rather than a back‑office utility.”

Q: If you were building a private markets operations platform from scratch today, what would you design differently than ten years ago?

A: We’re now evolving private markets operations in ways that make in‑house administration far more viable than it was a decade ago. I’ve seen the industry move from fully in‑house models to parallel processing and, more recently, to varying degrees of oversight, partnering with one or more administrators.

Ten years ago, and even as recently as a few years ago, I would have strongly supported a single‑administrator oversight model as optimal. Several administrators have built impressive platforms spanning accounting, reporting, operations, document management, and performance measurement. Their scale allowed them to invest meaningfully in people, processes, and technology in ways individual firms often couldn’t.

Today, advances in technology are making it easier for firms to manage these same processes efficiently and effectively in‑house, often in ways that mirror administrator capabilities. That shift is prompting a reassessment of whether oversight remains the best operating model, particularly for institutions where control, transparency, and institutional knowledge are critical.

“Advances in technology are making in‑house private markets administration far more viable than it was a decade ago.”

Q: How critical is real‑time data and transparency in private assets, and how close are we to achieving it across complex portfolios?

A: Real‑time transparency is important, but we need to be specific about what “real‑time” means in private markets. True, market‑style real‑time pricing isn’t achievable anytime soon due to the nature of the underlying assets and reporting cycles. That doesn’t mean firms should accept opacity or unnecessary latency in their operating models.

What matters most is near real‑time transparency into what we can control: exposures, commitments, cash activity, liquidity, pending flows, legal entity relationships, and operational workflow status. That level of insight can materially improve decision‑making even if valuations remain periodic rather than continuous.

Many firms still gather information manually and process it through disconnected systems, making it difficult to differentiate between what’s unknown and what’s simply in process. Straight‑through processing and systemic checks are critical to closing that gap, allowing firms to convert information into insight much faster and with greater confidence.

While momentum around private markets operating platforms is strong, I don’t see the asset class ever achieving real‑time transparency in the same way as public markets. The idiosyncratic nature of private holdings means the inputs themselves simply can’t move at that speed.

“Private markets won’t achieve real‑time pricing like public markets—but that doesn’t justify opacity.”

Q: Automation and AI are gaining traction across fund accounting and reporting. Where are they delivering real value today, and where does human judgment remain essential?

A: The technology available today is far more advanced than it was just a few years ago, when RPA and basic PDF extraction were the primary efficiency tools. As agentic AI becomes embedded in private market operations, a substantial share of core processes will be automated.

AI is particularly effective at dealing with unstructured information, such as bespoke manager notices, capital call and distribution documentation, legal language, and periodic reports. Document retrieval, data ingestion, aggregation, and comparison can all be performed faster and more consistently than through manual review alone.

That said, all of this needs to sit within a strong control framework, with humans firmly in the loop. Human judgment remains irreplaceable where context and interpretation matter, valuation oversight, judgment‑heavy accounting conclusions, escalation of unusual transactions, and manager assessment. AI can meaningfully support research and review, but the potential downside of processing errors means human oversight remains essential.

“Human judgment remains irreplaceable where context, materiality, and interpretation matter.”

Q: Do you see operational excellence becoming a deciding factor in performance outcomes or manager selection as private markets mature?

It’s important to distinguish between operational excellence and operational efficacy. When evaluating external managers, efficacy—meaning a reliable, repeatable, and fit‑for‑purpose operating model—is essential. Operational weakness can be a gating issue and absolutely disqualifying.

Operations matter in manager selection primarily as a threshold requirement. Weak controls create risks around valuations, cash management, reporting integrity, compliance, and overall platform dependability. That’s why operational due diligence plays such a critical role.

While strong operations can help on the margins by better enabling investment teams, I don’t believe operational excellence is typically a deciding factor in performance outcomes. Performance is ultimately driven by the front office. Recognising that dynamic is central to how we approach our role in operations—anchored in a client‑service mindset that supports investment success.

“Operational strength is table stakes in manager selection, weak operations can be fully disqualifying.”

Jameson Greenfield will join fellow CFOs and COOs at SuperReturn CFO/COO North America to explore how private markets firms are modernising operating models, balancing automation with judgment, and building platforms that can scale alongside the asset class.