For many asset managers and financial institutions, implementing an Investment Management System (IMS) like CRIMS or Aladdin is a mission-critical transformation. Yet, the execution of these large-scale projects often adheres rigidly to the traditional waterfall methodology, step-by-step, linear, and highly structured. While this model brings clarity and sequencing, it doesn’t always meet the dynamic needs of today’s post-trade workflows, data dependencies, or the realities of hybrid team resourcing.
At Ionixx Technologies, we’ve seen firsthand how these projects can stall under the weight of sprawling timelines, siloed phases, and misaligned expectations. That’s why we advocate for a smarter, hybrid project methodology, one that blends the structure of waterfall with the agility of sprint-based execution.
Why Traditional Methods Fall Short in IMS Implementations
While the conventional waterfall model provides predictability, it comes with critical limitations:
- Concurrent BAU Pressure: Project resources are often juggling both transformation and day-to-day operations, leading to burnout or delays.
- Lack of Interim Visibility: Progress feels abstract until late in the timeline, often leaving stakeholders guessing.
- Bottlenecks at UAT: User Acceptance Testing is frequently backloaded – meaning errors surface when there’s little room to maneuver.
- Minimal Cross-Stream Collaboration: Independent phases prevent early feedback loops across functional teams.
In response, we asked ourselves: Can a more fluid and iterative delivery framework improve stakeholder engagement, pace of execution, and ultimately, time-to-value?
Enter the Hybrid Delivery Model
Full Agile doesn’t always translate cleanly into financial system implementations. Unlike in app development, where shippable features are deployed at the end of each sprint, IMS platforms are not “consumed” incrementally. The value becomes apparent only when integrated modules, like compliance, performance, and order management, work together.
That’s why we champion a hybrid approach: start with a waterfall backbone to anchor scope, timeline, and governance – but layer in Agile-inspired sprints to drive iterative progress, promote accountability, and allow for early feedback.
Key Elements of the Hybrid Framework
- Structured Planning with Adaptive Execution
We retain a master project plan to define the critical path to go-live. But instead of waiting until the end to show value, we organize tasks into short, manageable sprints, each with its own set of deliverables and learning outcomes.
- Sprint Readouts & Stand-Ups
At the start of each sprint, team members collaboratively define priorities. Mid-sprint stand-ups (not necessarily daily) ensure alignment, resolve blockers, and reinforce shared accountability.
- Steering Governance, Not Just Oversight
Monthly stakeholder check-ins serve as decision-making hubs, not just status updates. These meetings are opportunities to unlock progress, escalate risks, and make configuration trade-offs early.
- Lean Meeting Culture
One of the unintended advantages of this hybrid model is the reduction in unnecessary meetings. Decisions happen within the context of the sprint, with only relevant contributors present.
- Rolling Backlog, Not Static Milestones
The backlog is informed by the waterfall plan, but adjusted sprint-to-sprint based on prior outcomes. This gives project managers the flexibility to recalibrate while staying anchored to end goals.
Designing Sprints in the IMS Context
Unlike in software development, sprint tasks in IMS projects often don’t produce end-user value right away. Instead, each sprint might include intermediary milestones, such as successfully loading benchmark data, making a key configuration decision, or validating reference data mappings. These sprints enable incremental progress without waiting for the final cutover to achieve meaningful wins.
In early sprints, we recommend prioritizing lower-complexity items. These help the team build rhythm and give project leadership early signals on velocity and capacity. As trust grows, cross-stream tasks – from compliance rules to attribution models – can be tackled concurrently.
The Role of the Project Manager: Crucial, Not Tactical
This model places greater strategic responsibility on the project manager. Familiarity with IMS implementations (CRIMS, Aladdin, or otherwise) becomes essential not only to manage timelines but also to intelligently sequence tasks, identify interdependencies, and surface high-impact decisions before they block progress.
Final Thoughts
Most large IMS implementations look great on paper but become slugfests in practice. Because traditional delivery models weren’t designed for today’s fragmented, high-stakes investment ops environments.
Teams end up balancing BAU fire drills with a multi-million-dollar system overhaul. Stakeholders stress because they don’t see value until month 11. Worst of all, there are UAT bottlenecks surfacing errors when it’s too late to fix them without risk or rework.
A hybrid model isn’t about jumping on the Agile bandwagon; it brings just enough structure to keep the program anchored, while using sprints to actually show momentum, unblock decisions, and course-correct before the budget or goodwill runs out.
In today’s environment, no one gets credit for “finishing a project.” You get credit for landing value faster, cleaner, and with fewer operational blowups. That’s the game, and hybrid delivery is how you play it smart.
