Blueprint Two delays: what next for market modernisation?

Insights from our latest Blueprint 2 Special Interest Group.

What happens when a market-wide modernisation programme stalls? Do firms wait for clarity or press ahead with their own initiatives? And if everyone takes their own path, how do we avoid creating even greater complexity and cost in the future?

These were some of the central questions explored at our latest member-only special interest group meeting, where we discussed the impact of the recently announced postponement of Blueprint Two testing and cutover dates. 

The conversation began with reflections on the reasons given for the delay. Official messaging pointed to the need to prioritise operational resilience through 2030, the risks introduced by design choices and testing, the importance of rehearsals and parallel runs, and the admission that previously promised benefits were overstated. While there was some appreciation for the more transparent tone of recent communications, members raised concerns over conflicting messages between different stakeholders, the feasibility of running parallel systems, and the risks of extending outdated legacy technology. 

From there, the discussion shifted to the wider implications. Participants agreed that while phase one of Blueprint Two remains important for moving to a modern technology stack, it is phase two that will deliver real market connectivity and long-term value. The concern is that phase two conversations have not even begun, leaving organisations uncertain about how to plan effectively. 

Different perspectives emerged. Some saw the delay as an opportunity to concentrate on placing efficiencies and data projects. Others highlighted the risks of being forced to ringfence London Market activity, creating technical debt and higher costs compared to more advanced international platforms. Several members questioned whether resources should have gone directly into phase two from the start, rather than being absorbed by the current focus on phase one. 

Data also featured prominently. The core data record was seen as essential for pre-bind automation and claims efficiency, yet its progress now appears tied to the uncertain timelines of future phases. This sparked debate around whether firms should act now on data modernisation, or wait for central direction. 

The meeting concluded with a consensus that passively waiting for Blueprint outcomes is not an option. Organisations must continue investing in their own digital and data transformation journeys while industry groups push for alignment on strategy and standards. Otherwise, the market risks fragmentation, duplicated costs and missed opportunities. 

What do you think? Should organisations wait for central programmes to deliver or should they take control of their own modernisation journeys now? 

Join the network to take part in future member-only discussions that bring together market peers to share insights, challenge thinking and explore practical steps to overcome the key challenges of modernisation. 
For more information about membership, contact Tom@TIN.events.