It lost direction.
A senior managing agent source says: "The major problem with Kinnect was that the real purpose of it changed over a period of time. Kinnect initially started off as some sort of website that traded risks.
"Then it changed and became something that was more to do with contract certainty, removing paper from the system along with various other attributes. It became almost schizophrenic in what it was supposed to be doing."
It tried to please too many people.
A market insider admits: "It is when you have 100 or so brokers and 42 managing agents, together with the ideas of numerous IUA members, who all want something slightly different. I think that is where Kinnect fell down. It tried to be all things to everyone. In a way it got too much."
It was too complicated.
Sean Dalton, managing director of Liberty Syndicates, insists: "It was too complicated, too much of a vision to change the world and, as a result, it got bogged down in too much bureaucracy. By that I don't mean the people - just the way it was done and the architecture it built.
"It began to feel cumbersome. It felt like an obligation rather than a must-have."
It took too long.
Torquil McLusky, business development manager Ascot Underwriting, says: "The problem with Kinnect was that it was something with a two-year time frame. The design, implementation and everything else involved took too long, the market moves on.
"You only have to look at Hurricane Katrina and the Eliot Spitzer investigation. They had a huge impact on the market. Therefore anything with a two-year time frame is doomed to fail."
It was too expensive.
It cost of more than £70m and the market no longer wanted to put any more money into it.
