When reviewing delivery approaches, Agile and Waterfall are often regarded as opposing models. The first is usually associated with speed and flexibility, and the latter with structure and control. However, for projects in the London Market, that distinction is rarely enough.
The right delivery model depends on the work being delivered. Where some programmes call for clear sequencing, formal approvals, and defined stages, others need early testing and the flexibility to adapt to requirements. In reality, many London Market programmes need elements of both.
The market continues to reflect on large-scale transformation and modernisation. Lloyd’s has moved away from the original Blueprint Two vision and refocused Velonetic on incremental technology modernisation, with operational resilience remaining a key priority, reinforcing the need for delivery models that are realistic, flexible and fit for how the market operates.
Why does the delivery model matter in the London Market?
Across the London market, insurers, managing agents, brokers, reinsurers and market service providers operate within a shared ecosystem, with complex distribution chains, delegated authority arrangements, specialist systems and regulatory obligations.
As a result, a change in one part of the process quickly impacts another, creating delivery challenges unlike those in a standalone technology or process improvement project. If the delivery model lacks flexibility, teams may struggle to respond when requirements change. Conversely, if the model is insufficiently defined, governance, dependencies, cost control, and regulatory assurance can become difficult to manage.
To decide on a delivery model, London Market Firms should ask which parts of the programme need structure, which call for iteration, and how the whole delivery model will be governed from discovery to implementation. This approach allows for the right degree of flexibility to be agreed in the early stages.
Where Waterfall works well
Waterfall delivery can be effective when the scope, sequence and required outcomes are clearly defined. For programmes involving regulatory change, data migration, system cutover or finance and reporting processes, a structured approach can provide useful control.
Where change affects underwriting operations, claims handling, accounting, delegated authority reporting or market-facing processes, this level of control is particularly important.
A Waterfall approach can also help when several parties need to agree on the same sequence of activities. London Market programmes often involve multiple stakeholders, such as internal teams, technology providers, market bodies, brokers, coverholders and outsourced service providers. If each party is working to different assumptions, delivery can quickly lose pace, so clear milestones, documented decisions and formal sign-off can reduce ambiguity and help maintain control.
However, the risk is clear when Waterfall is applied to work where the requirements are still developing. If operational teams test the solution only late in the process, issues may be identified after too much time and budget have already been committed. In the London Market, where processes are often shaped by legacy systems, specialist workflows and market dependencies, delivery models need enough structure to manage risk without delaying the learning that comes from early testing.
Where agile adds value
Agile delivery can be valuable when the solution needs to be tested and refined as more detail becomes available. This approach can be particularly useful if a firm is changing the user journey, redesigning operational processes, reviewing data capture or introducing new digital tools.
An agile approach can offer early involvement from those who will actively use the solution. For example, underwriters, claims teams, finance teams, operations teams, delegated authority teams, and compliance specialists can identify practical issues that may not be apparent during initial design. Here, regular testing and feedback can help firms understand whether the solution works in practice before it is scaled more widely.
Agile can also support better adoption; when users are involved throughout the process, they are more likely to understand the reasons behind the change and how it will affect them. As such, solutions can be delivered with operational engagement in mind from the outset.
However, Agile delivery still needs discipline. Without clear governance, agreed priorities and strong ownership, iterative delivery can lose focus. In regulated environments, firms also need to maintain evidence of decisions, controls, testing and approvals. Agile can support flexibility, but it should not remove the structure needed to manage risk, cost and regulatory assurance.
Is hybrid often the answer?
For many London Market programmes, a hybrid approach can provide the structure needed for governance, approvals and dependency management, while allowing individual workstreams to test, learn and adapt as the programme develops.
When a programme involves several different types of work, hybrid delivery can be useful; a data migration may require defined controls, reconciliation points, and formal sign-off, while a new workflow or digital interface may require user testing and iterative development. The same programme can therefore require different delivery methods at different stages.
A hybrid model also reflects the way London Market change is often delivered in practice. Firms need to manage internal governance, regulatory expectations, supplier dependencies, and market processes, while still giving teams enough flexibility to respond as operational details change. If the delivery model is designed too narrowly, the programme may either become difficult to control or too slow to adapt.
However, a hybrid approach is only truly successful when clear ownership is defined. Teams should understand which parts of the programme are fixed, which can change, how decisions are made, and how progress is measured. Used well, a hybrid model can help London Market firms balance control with practical delivery, offering enough structure to manage risk and cost while allowing for testing, feedback, and adaptation.
Lessons from market modernisation
The London Market has already seen how difficult large-scale transformation can be when the delivery model does not match the level of complexity involved. Blueprint Two was originally intended to deliver significant digital modernisation across the market. Still, Lloyd’s has since transitioned away from the programme and refocused Velonetic on incremental technology modernisation, while maintaining operational resilience as a priority.
This shows how the approach has shifted towards practical, staged change that can be delivered while the market continues to operate. For firms planning their own transformation programmes, large and complex change should be broken into deliverable stages, with realistic governance, clear ownership and regular testing against operational reality.
A more practical approach to delivery
Agile and Waterfall both have a place in London Market transformation, but the challenge is knowing which model fits the work, where structure is needed and where teams need space to test, refine and adapt.
At Brighter Consultancy, we work with insurers, managing agents, brokers and wider London Market firms to deliver complex change in a practical and controlled way. Our consultants work closely with client teams, helping to shape delivery models that reflect the programme, the operating environment, and the required level of governance.
If your transformation programme is being slowed down by unclear ownership, rigid delivery structures or a model that no longer fits the work, speak to us about a more effective way to deliver change in the London Market.
