From the Regulator’s statements on the benefits of consolidation to investment strategies demanding £25bn+ in assets for optimal returns, the message was loud and clear – scale is king.

And look, I get it. Consolidation brings buying power, governance efficiencies, and, for investment managers, that sweet spot of critical mass. But when it comes to pensions administration, we need to be a bit more cautious before jumping on the “bigger is better” bandwagon.

Because in my experience? Big can bite.

We’ve all seen the stories. A large administrator boasting scale, automation, and efficiency... right up until the point something goes wrong. And when it does, it really goes wrong. The industry has had its fair share of high-profile failures – tech implementations that never got off the ground, service level collapses, member comms disasters. And all from providers who were, on paper, "market leaders."

Why? Because scale can bring complexity. It can dull responsiveness. And it can make member experience a numbers game rather than a personal journey.

Tankers are hard to turn. And when it comes to adapting to change or responding to individual trustee needs, those big admin machines tend to move slowly – if at all.

One of the biggest gripes I hear from trustees who’ve moved from larger providers is the complete absence of personalisation. You go from being a valued client to a name on a spreadsheet. Your scheme is just another row in a resource model. Your members? Just data.

It’s not just a service issue. It affects outcomes.

We’ve spoken before about the importance of clarity, consistency and communication in building trust in pensions. Trafalgar House’s own Trust & Confidence Index showed that only 46% of members rate their experience with their pension positively – a steep drop from previous years. Dig a little deeper and it’s clear: members want clear information, fast responses, and access to people who actually understand their circumstances. And I would go further and argue that the type of people they want access to are those who take it personally and care about the schemes and members they support.

That’s hard to deliver when you’ve got admin teams juggling dozens of schemes and battling legacy systems that belong in a museum.

There’s also a myth that bigger providers are best placed to lead innovation. But the reality? Innovation often thrives in environments where agility, curiosity and client focus win out over size.

We’ve seen it ourselves – tech debt is a major issue across the industry. Big providers might have big IT budgets, but they also have big legacy systems and layers of sign-off. By the time a new feature sees the light of day, it’s already obsolete.

Innovation in administration isn’t just about building flashy portals or promising “AI-driven member experiences.” It’s about understanding the problem, listening to trustees and members, and building something that genuinely improves outcomes. That requires focus, flexibility, and – let’s be honest – a bit of bravery.

I’m not anti-consolidation. There’s a time and place for it. But we need to stop assuming that scale equals success – particularly in administration. Bigger providers may offer economies, but trustees should be asking: at what cost?

Smaller, specialist administrators bring a fresh perspective. We think differently. Move faster. And build meaningful relationships from day one. Our size gives us the agility to act quickly, adapt to change, and collaborate with new partners without the red tape. We’re not bound by legacy thinking – we keep an open mind and focus on what works. When it comes to technology, we’ve proven that smaller players can set the pace – whether that’s launching intuitive digital transfer portals or delivering quality driven services, year after year.

So next time someone tells you “big is best,” think twice. Because when it comes to pensions admin, better is best. And better doesn’t always come with a bigger badge.

Dan Taylor, Client Director – Trafalgar House