The Hidden Cost of Manual DDQs — And Why AI Is Becoming a Competitive Advantage

Investor due diligence questionnaires (DDQs) are a critical part of fundraising in private markets. They help limited partners (LPs) evaluate investment strategies, operational processes, compliance and risk management before committing capital. But for investor relations (IR) teams, they can be among the most resource-intensive and repetitive workflows of the fundraising process.

SS&C Intralinks recently surveyed a small group of U.S.-based investor relations (IR) and fundraising professionals about their current DDQ processes, most pressing challenges and views on artificial intelligence (AI). The findings offer valuable insight into how firms are managing one of fundraising's most resource-intensive workflows — and why many are rethinking the role AI can play in making it faster, more consistent and more scalable.

DDQs continue to consume valuable fundraising time

One of the clearest findings from the survey is how much time DDQs continue to complete. More than 40 percent of respondents said completing a single DDQ typically takes four days or longer, with 14 percent reporting that it takes more than a week. That is time teams could otherwise use to spend on higher-value activities, such as building investor relationships and advancing fundraising efforts.

The biggest bottlenecks may also surprise some firms. Respondents were evenly split between two stages of the process:

• Drafting the initial responses (43 percent)
• Securing internal approvals (43 percent)

These findings suggest that the challenge extends beyond writing answers. Even after responses have been drafted, coordinating reviews across investor relations, compliance, legal and other stakeholders can significantly slow the process.

The true cost of slow DDQs may be invisible

Only a small percentage of respondents said they had definitively lost an investor because of a slow or incomplete DDQ response. What's perhaps more telling is that nearly half said they simply didn't know.

That uncertainty highlights an important reality of fundraising: firms rarely receive feedback explaining why they weren't selected. An LP may choose another manager because they responded faster, provided more consistent information or created a smoother diligence experience — but the GP may never know.

In other words, the opportunity cost of an inefficient DDQ process is often difficult to measure, making it easy to underestimate its impact on fundraising outcomes.

AI is moving from experimentation to adoption

The survey also suggests that AI adoption is gaining meaningful momentum within fundraising teams. Just over half of respondents said their firms are already using AI in their DDQ process or have piloted AI tools. At the same time, nearly half remain in the exploration stage or have yet to begin evaluating AI.

This split reflects a broader transition taking place across private markets. AI is no longer viewed solely as an emerging technology, but rather a part of everyday fundraising workflows. As firms look to reduce manual effort while maintaining responsiveness to LPs, AI is moving from experimentation toward practical implementation. 

Accuracy matters more than speed alone

Despite growing adoption of AI, respondents also expressed reservations.

The most significant concern was the risk of inaccurate or fabricated responses, cited by 62 percent of participants. Notably, no respondents said they had no concerns about using AI for DDQs. 

This reinforces an important point: In fundraising, trust matters as much as efficiency.

DDQs often contain highly detailed operational, compliance and performance information. Generative AI (GenAI) tools that generate responses without grounding them in approved firm content can introduce unnecessary risk.

Purpose-built AI addresses these concerns by generating draft responses from approved internal content, providing supporting citations and keeping humans firmly in control of review and approval before anything is shared externally.

Quality, consistency and capacity are the real priorities

Perhaps the most telling finding was which improvements respondents said they valued most in the DDQ process. While faster turnaround was important, it wasn't the top priority.

When asked what outcomes matter most, 40 percent of respondents cited greater accuracy and consistency, followed by reducing staff burden (35 percent). Faster turnaround times ranked third at 25 percent.

Taken together, these findings suggest fundraising teams aren't simply looking to complete DDQs more quickly. They're looking to improve the quality and consistency of responses while reducing the administrative burden on IR teams. By freeing experienced professionals from repetitive, manual work, firms can dedicate more time to higher-value activities such as strengthening LP relationships and advancing strategic fundraising initiatives.

Building a more intelligent fundraising workflow

As LP expectations continue to evolve, DDQs are becoming more detailed and increasingly difficult to manage using disconnected AI tools, email chains and manual workflows. The survey findings suggest that firms are looking for more than incremental efficiency gains—they're looking for a smarter, more scalable way to manage one of fundraising's most time-consuming processes.

Solutions like SS&C Intralinks FundCentre™ Fundraising help firms automate DDQs by generating AI-assisted responses from approved fund materials, centralizing response libraries, streamlining review workflows and maintaining a complete audit trail within a secure environment.

As AI adoption continues to mature, the firms that gain a competitive advantage won't simply be those completing DDQs faster. They'll be the ones delivering accurate, consistent responses while giving their fundraising teams more time to focus on what matters most: building stronger LP relationships and raising capital.