Something of a big deal happened in the Lloyd’s market this week, but it’s a story that starts in 1803. That’s when John Julius Angerstein, the Father of Lloyd’s, launched a charity known as the Lloyd’s Patriotic Fund.

Britain was having a little… spat with neighbours across the Channel. Wounded soldiers, casualties, widows, and fatherless children needed support. The Lloyd’s market rallied to set up the Patriotic Fund, and donated substantial sums for their relief.

Flash forward 223 years. The charity, which has been operating continuously over those two and quarter centuries, made a significant change. They held a big event to announce to the world that henceforth Lloyd’s Patriotic Fund would be known as Lloyd’s Veterans Charity.

When I first heard this news, I was somewhat taken aback. Why fiddle about with a market standard that’s been in place for so very long, and worked so well?

An army of LVC boosters had colonised the Lloyds building on the day. I took the opportunity to put the question to one of them. The answer made a great deal of sense to me.

“It’s always a tough decision to change something that’s worked for a long time,” said the man, who turned out to be the volunteer who’d coordinated the whole rebranding effort. “But often our attachment to things, particularly brands, could have more to do with the sentiment behind them, or the challenge of changing them, or both, than it has to do with the actual value that thing adds.”

I pondered this slightly cryptic answer for a while. “So you’re saying the charity’s 200 year old name was bad value?” I asked.

“Not exactly,” he said.  “It’s just that it could be so much better.”

He went on to talk about resonance. The name didn’t work with the average person in the market anymore, because the words “patriotic” and “fund” held little meaning, especially to younger people. Worse, the recent connotations of “patriotic” were felt to be negative by many people in a focus group.

When I drew a parallel to insurance technology, it all seemed so obvious. It’s exactly like hanging onto legacy systems and process is because they’re what you’ve always used, and changing them would be an expensive hassle. Even though a new system might be very much better at achieving your goals, it can be very difficult to let go, especially when it’s easy to find reasons to hang on.

Consider the simple bordereau. It’s the basic tool for reporting risks attaching and claims made. It’s an excel spreadsheet (so, at least, it’s finally vaguely digital). It’s usually about a month behind. It’s full of errors. It doesn’t make anyone’s job easier. It creates unnecessary work which could be automated away.

Despite all this, when I talk to companies about upgrading or replacing systems with platforms that support straight-through processing and remove the bordereaux from the equation, I often find the kind of resistance the went with the idea of changing the name of a 225 year old charity.

People say things like: “It works so we don’t need to change it,” or “It would be a bunch of hassle for the staff to learn a new system,” or simply that it’s not a priority, especially because premiums are down and belts must be tightened.

“A lot of people asked why we would change something so longstanding,” said the man from the charity. “But when they saw our new name and logo, they were universally converted. Instead of being tied to the past and lost in it, our new branding links our proud past to the future, and embraces it.”

That too sounds familiar. Whenever I’ve worked with underwriting and broking executives who were reluctant to abandon the old ways in favour of a new approach, they’ve always come around to the wisdom of modernity once it’s implemented, and is resonating with the staff by making their jobs easier, giving them more time to add value.

Lloyd’s Veterans Charity (which my firm is proud to support) has taken the brave and difficult step of changing its relationship with its legacy. It’s a decision that many market firms should map onto their technology platforms, and follow.