It's actually nothing to with environmental benefits or consequences as far as I can see, though one might ask why that aspect could not play a significant part. And I must make clear I am not well equipped to understand the logistical issues, but it just strikes me that there was the potential of saving an awful lot of paper that will now again go to, along with.... £70 million.
However, these may give a clue:
"the platform was not optimal in ensuring more efficient business processes for the Lloyd's and London market and as a result it will close."
"The problem was underwriters and brokers just didn't seem to care about getting involved and making the market more technology based."
"Like all institutionalised projects, it fell foul of politicking, agendas, and civil service management structures, which drove costs through the roof."
Lloyd's role "should be primarily on standards setting, not building infrastructure"
Well, that's ok then.
We're in the business of trying to promote better ways of helping the planet. It can often feel like we're in the wrong one.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.