My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what a technology change promises to finish and which obligations continue after the headline milestone. My examples include a retirement proposal I withdrew, diagnostic information we reduced before release and a maintenance route whose fallback was not yet ready. Those decisions give me a practical starting point for questions about evidence, cost and the responsibilities assigned to management. They do not make me an independent assurance provider or a specialist in every information rule. I would ask how the board receives the unfinished part of a proposal, whether the relevant business owners have accepted the route and which decisions still need professional assessment. My contribution should improve the collective understanding of the recommendation. It should not create an unofficial architecture committee around one director or allow the executive team to treat my experience as a substitute for testing, approval and accountability within the receiving company.
Judgement in practice
01Retirement evidence omitted the historical work
The proposed shutdown covered migrated transactions but left nine of thirty-six report types dependent on the older application. I would ask directors whether the exit recommendation describes all continuing obligations and whether the claimed saving includes the transition period. Six of the nine retrieval routes later passed, with three still unresolved. That distinction matters because partial progress does not authorise a claim of complete retirement. The board should understand the remaining dependency and management’s plan without selecting individual retrieval designs. It should also ask who determines retention and disposal requirements; retaining controlled access temporarily is not permission to preserve all information forever. My own premature recommendation is useful evidence of why a confident completion account deserves examination before a financial benefit is treated as achieved.
02A quiet office period was active for hospital service
The maintenance proposal assumed that closed branches meant limited service demand. The selected eight Saturdays showed 360 of 2,000 hospital-service messages within the proposed window, without establishing the clinical urgency of any message. I would ask how management chose its service assumptions and tested the fallback route. Three successful exercises did not cancel the fourth failure or produce a reliable prediction of availability. The board’s task would be to understand the remaining limitation, additional annual expense and basis for release authority. It should not choose a maintenance hour from the boardroom or infer patient outcomes from message counts. This example shows how an apparently technical scheduling decision can contain an operating commitment that needs a clearer account before approval.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding how the company decides that a technology obligation is complete. Through the chair’s agreed induction, I would examine one system-change proposal and one continuing-service commitment, meeting the responsible executives through established arrangements. I would ask how information owners, finance and operations contribute evidence and how unresolved differences reach the board. Twenty-two days must include reading, induction, meetings and exceptional demands, with the actual calendar settled before acceptance. I would seek feedback on whether my questions clarify the decision or pull directors into implementation detail. A useful first-year contribution could be a more intelligible account of the obligations, costs and limitations carried beyond a major change. It should attach to the company’s priorities, rather than become a personal programme to reproduce the systems I have used in insurance.
Conflicts and their management
My executive role exposes me to insurer technology plans, hospital-service arrangements, supplier negotiations and protected information. The founder, corporate and employee interests in Merqlavi also create relationships that need examination even though I hold no personal beneficial interest in the employee vehicle. Before receiving another company’s confidential papers, I would disclose relevant employment, commercial and financial connections and seek an appointment-specific assessment. A supplier or partner might expect commercial access through my role; I would make clear that an outside appointment provides no such route. Recusal can help with a defined matter, but repeated absence from the technology agenda may defeat the intended contribution. Employer consent and the practical meeting calendar also require resolution. I would decline an arrangement that expects me to transfer protected knowledge, influence procurement informally or certify technical readiness on the strength of personal reputation instead of the company’s own evidence and authorised process.
My independence statement
My employment and relationships with insurers, hospitals, technology suppliers and investors require examination. I have no beneficial holding in the employee vehicle, but that alone does not establish independence for an appointment.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Insurance and continuing digital services · Enterprises changing long-lived information systems
- Company type
- An organisation with clear information ownership and a chair willing to examine unfinished change obligations
- Company stage
- Replacing established systems or reconsidering technology service commitments
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider one non-executive role where established directors want practical scrutiny of technology change and continuing information responsibilities. The company should have a clear distinction between collective oversight, professional assurance and management delivery. I need to complete independent-role preparation and the receiving company’s assessment before treating such an appointment as available. My initial contribution would fit technology or operational-risk discussions under experienced leadership, without an offer to chair a statutory committee. I would want to understand why the board needs this perspective and what other skills complement it. An appointment presented mainly as access to insurer customers, hospital contacts or technology suppliers would not fit. Nor would a role that quietly expects a director to act as temporary CIO. The useful contribution is to help the board ask what the change decision contains, what it leaves unresolved and who is accountable for that remainder.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology change and operational-risk discussions · Information responsibility and service continuity oversight |
|---|
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Independent-role learning, registration where required and appointment assessment remain incomplete. No statutory service, exemption or proficiency pass is claimed.
- Learning to examine technology proposals collectively without directing implementation teams
- Preparing to assess information responsibilities, appointment conditions and relevant commercial relationships
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Merqlavi Health Assurance
Invited technology investment and service-change discussions
April 2022–present
Explains CIO proposals, operating expense and outstanding release limitations; no statutory seat or committee vote.
Reported to a committee
Merqlavi Health Assurance
Technology dependency papers through the COO
April 2015–March 2022
Prepared management evidence on system retirement and continuing obligations; executive reporting only.