Presented to the Board or a committee
Voluneri Vehicle Finance
Board risk committee
April 2021–present
Present technology continuity, supplier and investment matters as CIO by invitation; no committee membership or statutory director appointment.
Celia Darnavelli · Chief Information Officer · India
Technology dependence as a board question
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what an assurance statement actually establishes. Technology reports often use compressed labels such as recovered, migrated or complete. My experience suggests that directors should ask which business tasks were tested, which dependencies remain and who has accepted the operating position. I would bring practical evidence from recovery, supplier exit and reporting decisions without treating my employer's methods as a universal standard. My background is enterprise technology in a regional lender, not independent security certification or legal advice. I would want the board to have access to those other skills and to management's own specialist assessments. I have presented to a risk committee but have not been a member or director. An initial committee contribution would therefore begin with learning the company's business and governance, rather than offering to chair a technical discussion immediately.
Committee contribution
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk committee with a technology-dependence remit, subject to the company's composition requirements |
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Regional financial services outside competing lending relationships · Business administration services · Technology-dependent operating companies
- Company type
- Unlisted company with an experienced chair and established specialist advisers
- Company stage
- Reviewing technology dependence before its next period of growth
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first seat at an unlisted company that depends materially on technology but wants directors to examine business consequences rather than endorse a technical shopping list. A non-competing administrator or service operator with an experienced chair could fit. I would want to know why the board needs my perspective, what other expertise is present and how management responds to challenge. I have zero current directorships and am not offering immediate committee-chair readiness. My fictional IICA registration dates from August 2026; the proficiency self-assessment remains to be completed, with no exemption claimed. Those preparation requirements would be addressed before a relevant appointment. I would decline a seat whose attraction was access to my employer's suppliers or confidential plans. The intended contribution is careful collective oversight of technology dependence, supported by learning the company's actual operating model.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Fictionally registered with the IICA Independent Directors' Databank in August 2026. The proficiency self-assessment remains unfinished; no exemption or eligibility conclusion is claimed.
- Participated in internal board-paper workshops with the company secretary
- Studied the distinction between technology assurance and a director's collective oversight responsibility
Board and committee exposure
Judgement in practice
A result that was true but too narrowly interpreted
The recovery exercise met an application-restart measure while seventeen sampled servicing tasks remained unfinished. The provider's result and the business concern could both be true. I would bring that distinction to a board reviewing an assurance report: what exactly was tested, what conclusion is being drawn and what sits outside the evidence? The response should be proportionate to the consequence of the gap. In our case, management funded a defined repair and repeat test rather than rejecting every part of the recovery arrangement. The remaining unreadable source attachment was assigned separately. A director should ask for that clarity and understand the trade-off, including the work displaced by remediation. The board's role is to judge the position management proposes, not to become the operator of the next recovery exercise.
Deferring a platform without pretending the need disappeared
The reporting decision required us to separate unresolved business definitions from a desire for better software. We funded three owned reports and deferred the larger replacement, while acknowledging that interface and self-service limitations remained. For a board, I would ask whether a smaller proposal resolves the uncertainty that matters or merely postpones necessary investment. I would also challenge the presentation of unspent proposals as realised savings. The comparison should include the work delivered, the capability forgone and the circumstances that would justify reconsideration. This is a judgement about scope and evidence, not a general preference for inexpensive technology. Directors need a clear account of why management's recommendation fits the current conditions and how they will know when those conditions have changed.
My first year on a board
I would start by understanding how the company earns revenue and which technology dependencies could interrupt its obligations. With the chair and chief executive, I would agree an induction involving operating, finance and technology leaders, supported by recent examples of a change, an incident and a supplier decision. I would review existing assurance before asking for additional reports. In committee, I would initially focus on the clarity of one recurring decision, such as acceptance of a continuity position or approval of a major service change. I would seek feedback on whether my questions help other directors understand the consequence or pull the discussion into unnecessary technical detail. My proposed twenty days a year includes preparation and induction but is not a promise to absorb unlimited exceptional demands. Employer consent and the actual calendar would need agreement before appointment.
Conflicts and their management
A prospective company may use the same providers as my employer or have a commercial relationship with the lender. I would identify those connections through the nomination process and disclose relevant personal interests before receiving confidential papers. I would not share my employer's contracts, security findings, customer records or negotiating position with another board. A limited conflict may be managed through an agreed procedure; a pervasive one may prevent a useful appointment. I would also avoid acting as an informal implementation adviser to the company outside the board's authorised arrangements. Applicable independence requirements, directorship limits and committee composition must be assessed for the specific company with appropriate professional advice. My IICA registration is a preparation step, not evidence that every appointment requirement has been met. Any change in employment or commercial relationships would prompt a fresh disclosure.
My independence statement
Employment, financial interests and supplier relationships would be disclosed for a company-specific independence assessment. I would not infer eligibility from my technical role or lack of current board seats.