InsurTalk: Zero-Defect Core Modernisation: The Role of Programme Management in Business-Critical Transformation with James Holmes, Interim Program Director, former CIO

As marine insurance evolves, so must its core systems. Modernising a legacy platform is a high-stakes challenge that demands strong programme management, clear execution, and risk mitigation strategies. This case study explores how a structured transformation approach ensured the seamless modernisation of a business-critical system. The result? A go-live with zero critical defects.

Karol Bartosiak: Hello, I’m Karol Bartosiak. Welcome to another episode of IT Insights Insure Talk series by Future Processing. Today we’ll be covering one of the most challenging elements of technology in insurance business: core system modernisation programs. According to McKinsey and Project Management Institute studies, the failure rate for programs of this magnitude is between 40% and 70%. The cost of failure may vary from 10 to 100 millions of US dollars for insurers, so we speak about something very, very serious.

However, today we’ll be talking about a very successful core system modernisation completed in a way that is unusual for this business: it’s a zero critical defect go-live. Today with me is James Holmes, author of the success, with whom we’ll try to understand the anatomy of the successful business case.

James Holmes: Yeah, hi, Karol. Thank you very much for inviting me along here today. My name is James Holmes. I am a Program Director and CIO. I have extensive experience of program business change and service delivery across a number of sectors covering both FMCG and also insurance. More recently, I’ve led a very large-scale business transformation program modernising systems in the insurance space.

Karol Bartosiak: James, to begin our interview, if you could explore more about core systems. What exactly is the system about?

James Holmes: A core system is your fundamental system that is running or underpins your business processes. So without having a core system in place, you are unable to function as a business.

Karol Bartosiak: And how do we understand the modernisation? Changing the system?

James Holmes: So from a modernisation point of view, it’s really important that your core systems aren’t holding you back. They’re able to support the business and actually even help increase market share and improve services to the customer.

Karol Bartosiak: Okay, so here we speak about a very delicate system at the very heart of the business with complex modernisation. And here, while preparing for the interview, we’re using also the metaphor as a “snake game” to explain how the modernisation works. So we speak about the old-fashioned legacy game Snake that is absorbing each specific piece of technology or business process. Growing each time it absorbs this element, it starts quickly to become lengthy, difficult to navigate, and easy to crash into obstacles. Is it the right metaphor we can use to explain that?

James Holmes: It’s a really good metaphor, Karol, because I grew up in the 80s and had great experience of playing with these snake games. Some of the challenges of trying to navigate the snake around the course is really quite difficult and challenging, and you’ve got to make sure you’re able to control it. And so why do you want to enter into this game? Well, actually, simply put, it’s the business case. The business case is absolutely the most important bit of information or piece of work that you want to do on your program, because without the business case, you would not be able to prove the value going along. The business case underpins everything.

Karol Bartosiak: Okay, thank you. And James, why did you enter the game?

James Holmes: We had a number of challenges. We had a very old legacy system in place that had been around for a very long time, and we built a business case that really demonstrated very clearly the benefits that we could get. There was innovation; we wanted to get to market faster, we wanted to be able to respond quicker to market changes, and we wanted to increase productivity within the team. McKinsey very clearly articulates that process or policy improvements can drive efficiencies of up to about 40%.

Supportability was one of the challenges. We had a very old legacy system and a very small number of people in the market that were able to support such a system. We’ve got risk management as well. You know, we can start to see modern technologies – artificial intelligence, machine learning – starting to drive more and more of our business, but having such an old system, it was quite difficult to get to the data, so we couldn’t use some of those modern technologies.

There’s a couple of other opportunities that we identified: regulatory compliance. As we all know in the insurance or financial services world, regulation is getting more and more complicated, and therefore we needed to make sure that we could comply with UK, European, and global regulatory requirements. Customer service is also really key. How do we differentiate ourselves in a really competitive market? We wanted to improve our digital services and channels. And finally, data and the integration with other ecosystems, including third parties like IoT or other data streams.

Karol Bartosiak: So we’re talking about a very complex, multi-angle business case that makes a drive to initiate the program, and actually, this is something that is also a lighthouse for the program management later on?

James Holmes: Yes, yeah. Because having that business case is core to every decision that you make on the program. It gives you those guiding principles as you’re navigating the snake along that journey.

Karol Bartosiak: James, we understand now what the core system is and we can visualize the modernisation via our snake game. Now the next question arises: how to navigate the snake to get the high score and avoid the obstacles?

James Holmes: Okay, so just like a snake charmer plays a tune to control the snake, that’s what program management is all about. It’s about putting boundaries and controls in place to make sure the program doesn’t deviate from the plan. A well-run program ensures there’s the right level of program management. Quite often people hear about governance and worry that there’s this huge, cumbersome thing that restricts what can happen, but it’s about getting that balance right. Sometimes, depending on the size and complexity of the program, you might need to put more governance around it, and sometimes you can put less.

Over the years, the first area I focus a lot on is ownership – ownership by the business. You’ve got to be very clear that these change programs are not technology programs, but they are business change programs and they’ve got to be owned by the business. Sponsorship from the business is really important.

Karol Bartosiak: James, you know, representing the technology, we often face the situation that modernization programs are seen as the “technology department’s” business.

James Holmes: From all of the transformation programs that I have done, what’s made them successful is that the business has taken ownership and responsibility for the delivery because, ultimately, they’re the recipients of the solution. Yes, you’ve got the technology team supporting it, but the day-to-day use of the solution is very much operational.

Karol Bartosiak: So the business case needs to prove specific value so they know there’s a case to take the journey, serving them rather than the technology department.

James Holmes: Absolutely, it’s absolutely key. And it’s engaging the right levels; you need that senior management involvement right at the very top to support and drive the program forward. Some of the other points I have learned are around governance. It needs to be clear and robust. This can range from making sure the right escalation processes are in place to risk and issue management and steering groups.

Karol Bartosiak: How you try to balance the administration burden with real efficiency?

James Holmes: In my role as an interim program director, I look at the maturity of the business. It very much depends on the maturity of the business and the size and scale and complexity of the program.

Karol Bartosiak: Here also I will make a step back about building the business case with the stakeholders, because it seems a lot of workshopping was done in the very initial stages so people realize what the program is up to. You highlight communication and governance before actually doing something, rather than jumping to conclusions and execution.

James Holmes: It’s absolutely key. I read an article that talked about this very thing: don’t rush to bring on your implementation partner and go full speed. Go slowly. Make sure you’ve got your building blocks in place and then start to onboard everybody. The program will go a lot smoother when everyone’s clear of what’s going on.

Karol Bartosiak: Could you tell us something more about the impact of leadership to program success and your tips in this area?

James Holmes: A number of things I’ve learned: being open and transparent is the most important. It boils down to communication – being very clear, especially in times of challenge or difficulty. Having a leader able to drive the program forward in a steady and controlled way is really, really important.

Karol Bartosiak: Observing your leadership style, there was a high level of empowerment that you delegated to your management. It was very smooth; people knew exactly what to do.

James Holmes: I give people very clear guard rails – boundaries – and together we agree on the direction of travel. I then step back and let them do their own job and I empower them, but I actively encourage them that if they need help or are stuck, they come and see me. This is all about feedback. I also regularly engage with the senior management team so they can understand the progress and, in total transparency, the challenges.

Another important factor is making sure everybody’s clear on their accountabilities, including third parties. Finally, you need to make sure decision-making is made at the right level and remember to celebrate when things go right.

Karol Bartosiak: James, exploring program management communication with top executives, what does it require to be efficient?

James Holmes: One of the key things is ensuring you can translate technical complexity into really simple, non-technical speak for your executive peers. That is absolutely key. One of my tips is to use a really simple analogy. I compare a program to building and decorating a house – building the kitchen, the bathroom, the bedroom – where you’re building up different areas of the solution to then have a totality with it all working together.

Karol Bartosiak: So make it very visual, don’t go into technical details that blur the vision, and focus on the information needed to make the right decision.

James Holmes: That’s right. Explain the problem simply, explain your recommendation, and work with the team to ensure they support the decision. Executives have very busy lives; you need to communicate in a clear, concise, and understandable way.

Karol Bartosiak: I remember you always gave a lot of attention to the CFO, probably for the budgetary element.

James Holmes: The CFO I used to work for also had a bit of a COO role, so it was important for him to understand the journey. Him and I were the executive sponsors. It’s key that it’s not just an IT person, but an operational person or someone else outside IT sponsoring the program.

Karol Bartosiak: James, I would like to make a deep dive into change management. One thing is the system working; the second thing is people knowing how to use it. How do you achieve that?

James Holmes: Well in advance of going live, you need to understand how they work today. You need to explain the benefits of moving to new ways of working and think about “what’s in it for them”. You make sure you do that through a number of communications: teams videos, written newsletters, or in-person training. People generally don’t like change, so you need to bring them along on the journey.

Karol Bartosiak: This leads back to the McKinsey study about 40% improvement in efficiency – users observing the improvement of quality in their work.

James Holmes: Improvement in quality, efficiency, and user experience. Moving from an old legacy system to a modern one, the user experience is very different. We need to explain why we might be asking teams to capture more data than before.

Karol Bartosiak: While designing the new system, have you been engaging users into the process?

James Holmes: Absolutely. You need to engage those who are going to use the system at a really early stage so they understand how it’s going to work and have an opportunity to contribute.

Karol Bartosiak: So you engage them from day one when building the business case, so they contribute and see the personal value.

James Holmes: It’s a win-win.

Karol Bartosiak: What would be your tips about executing communication with a strategic partner?

James Holmes: It’s really important that you invest the time and effort. For example, flying over to Poland to go and see the whole team, explain why the business was doing what it was doing, and talk about the benefits. We did regular town halls explaining where we were and the challenges.

Karol Bartosiak: How you selected the right partner?

James Holmes: I have three principles. The first being cultural fit – do they talk the same language as us and understand the problem? The second is technical capability. Third and final is the commercial, but that’s the lowest priority of all.

Karol Bartosiak: All this approach resulted in something very unusual: zero critical defect go-live for a core system. James, how you achieved that?

James Holmes: I took a number of learnings from my very first go-live, which was a little bit bumpy. We had the right governance and were clear on making decisions at the right level. We also had clear communication and preparation – and we practice, practice, practice. We practiced the transition from old to new systems a number of times to make sure we got it right. We also prepared with Future Processing for 24/7 support during that first period, but we were able to stand the team down after less than a week because we didn’t have any critical defects at go-live at all.

Karol Bartosiak: You were also very open about the date for the go-live; it changed a couple of times.

James Holmes: One of the great learnings is don’t be afraid to delay a go-live. I’ve seen too many times people rushing go-lives and then having significant business impact afterwards. We decided the best thing to do was actually to delay it for several months. The cost of delay was a lot less than if we’d gone live and then spent many months recovering and trying to fix issues. You’ve got to be brave enough to say no when the system or processes aren’t ready.

Karol Bartosiak: So the failure rate is 40-70% and making it successful means good definition of the problem and careful timing.

James Holmes: Only go live when you believe the systems and the processes are ready to go live.

Karol Bartosiak: How did we achieve that people stayed focused and believed in the ultimate success even when postponing the go-live?

James Holmes: Again, it comes back to being open and transparent. We clearly articulated what the problem was and the reason why we didn’t want to go live, then explained the logic behind how long it would take until we could. We explained it wasn’t safe and how we were going to remediate that.

Karol Bartosiak: What would be your takeaways?

James Holmes: Two really important lessons: First, the business case – make sure you have a solid, robust business case that everybody has bought into. Secondly, it’s really important to have a good strategic partner you can trust, but you can also hold to account. It’s got to be a two-way relationship where you listen to their experience as well.

Karol Bartosiak: James, thank you for sharing your experience and all the insights with our audience.

James Holmes: Excellent. Thank you very much indeed, Karol.