What’s in a label? Has the industry’s fixation on traditional terms like OMS and EMS become a barrier to progress? How should firms balance the need for innovation with the demand for reliability in order and execution management systems? And what does a next-generation O/EMS infrastructure really look like in an environment where adaptability and data-driven functionality are paramount?
These and other questions were explored during a panel discussion at the A-Team Group’s recent TradingTech Summit London. The session was moderated by Steve Grob, Founder of Vision57, and featured insights from Chris Lewis, Head of Trading & Technology at Westbeck Capital Management LLP; Anvar Karimson, CTO of Kepler Cheuvreux; Ashwin Venkatraman, Head of Asset Management Trading Technology at J.P. Morgan Asset Management; and Medan Gabbay, Chief Revenue Officer at Quod Financial.The conversation revealed that traditional system definitions are increasingly unfit for purpose, and that the future of capital markets infrastructure may depend on breaking down monolithic platforms into more modular, intelligent, and responsive architectures.
Challenging the Labels
One of the most provocative points raised early in the discussion was whether the very terminology of “OMS” and “EMS” is stifling innovation. The problem is not merely semantic. These terms have become catch-alls for vastly different capabilities across asset classes and organisational structures. As one panellist noted, labels such as OMS and EMS often “encapsulate a lot of functionality,” making it difficult to have a coherent conversation about convergence or replacement. This creates friction when firms attempt to rationalise systems or integrate across business lines.
Rather than continuing to shoehorn workflows into outdated system definitions, participants called for a more granular, capability-driven approach. Breaking functionality into components – such as connectivity, analytics, or compliance – opens the door to more focused innovation and vendor collaboration. This decoupling is especially important when considering cross-asset workflows or merging front-office systems across business units.
From Monoliths to Modularity
The panellists largely agreed that monolithic systems no longer serve the needs of modern trading desks. These platforms, often implemented over a decade or more, were described as inflexible and incapable of supporting rapid change. More worryingly, they are rarely seen as sources of innovation. “People don’t think about them as places where change happens,” one speaker remarked, highlighting the perception that legacy vendors lack the incentives or capabilities to keep pace with evolving business needs.In contrast, microservices and modular architectures were presented as a viable way forward. By adopting a building-block approach, firms can update individual components without overhauling the entire stack. This allows for incremental improvements and targeted innovation, particularly when integrating third-party tools or custom workflows.
A practical advantage of this modular approach is that it supports experimentation. Panellists emphasised the importance of “failing fast” in order to learn and iterate. With foundational systems in place, firms can test new ideas in parallel without risking core operations—a level of flexibility that’s impossible within monolithic platforms.
Speed, Scale, and Survivability
Another major trend discussed was the shrinking innovation and replacement cycle. Where firms once expected to amortise a system over a decade or more, the current climate demands ROI in under five years. This change is being driven by client demands, competitive pressure, and the sheer pace of market evolution. “We’re trying to support more with less,” said one participant, pointing to the need for platforms that enable scale without bloating cost structures.
The conversation also surfaced a divide between buy-side and sell-side perceptions of OMS value. While the buy side often sees OMS platforms as cost centres – necessary but cumbersome – the sell side is more likely to view them as revenue enablers through differentiated execution capabilities. This divergence shapes both investment appetite and innovation strategy, with larger buy-side firms more likely to build in-house capabilities where they see strategic value.
For smaller firms, cost remains a primary driver, often leading to bundled solutions that prioritise simplicity and speed to market. In either case, the common goal is efficiency, whether through automation, reduced manual processes, or more intelligent data usage.
Building for the Business You Want to Be
Several panellists stressed that successful transformation projects must start with a vision of the future, not a documentation of the present. Too often, firms approach replacement initiatives by cataloguing every existing feature, only to recreate outdated workflows on a new platform. This retrospective approach risks replicating inefficiencies and missing the opportunity to reimagine how a trading function could operate.
Instead, firms should begin by defining the outcomes they want to achieve – whether it’s cross-asset trading, greater trader autonomy, or richer data integration – and then identify the tools and partnerships needed to support that vision. “Imagine an outcome, not a product,” one speaker urged, underlining the shift from system-driven design to business-driven architecture.
This mindset is particularly crucial as newer generations of trading professionals, less tolerant of legacy limitations, begin to shape organisational priorities. These users expect modern, responsive, and intuitive systems, and they will push for platforms that empower rather than constrain.
Innovation with Stability
A final point of discussion addressed a persistent myth in the industry: that innovation and stability are mutually exclusive. The panellists pushed back strongly against this idea, noting that engineering best practices – such as automated testing, staged deployments, and continuous integration – make it entirely feasible to deliver reliable platforms that evolve quickly.
“Innovation brings future stability,” one speaker argued, highlighting that the problem is not the pace of change, but the design of the systems being changed. Modular, well-architected platforms reduce the blast radius of updates and allow firms to be both agile and resilient.
Indeed, the goal is no longer just execution, but intelligent partnership. As one panellist succinctly put it, the next generation of OMS/EMS platforms should not simply enable workflow, they should be part of the workflow, surfacing insights, anticipating needs, and adapting in real time.
Subscribe to our newsletter
