Ritika Nerqeshi · Chief Information Officer · India
Ask what the continuity claim has actually demonstrated
My contribution to a board
I would help directors examine what supports a claim about technology continuity. A system may have source archives but still be difficult for another team to build. An upgrade may preserve behaviour whose business purpose no longer has an owner. Test material may be convenient while carrying details the company has not considered carefully enough. The board needs an intelligible account of those conditions, their business consequences and the next decision required. It should not need to become the technical team or treat a deposit receipt as a complete answer. My experience includes approvals that contributed to accumulated customisation, so I would examine management's earlier choices as well as the current supplier relationship. I would work with the chair, CIO and appropriate advisers, respecting legal rights and technical authority. My role would be to improve the question and the evidence before the board, not to certify the entire system from a presentation.
Judgement in practice
01
A deposit receipt and a successful rebuild answer different questions
Source archives existed for five applications, but only two initially built in the authorised verification environment. After funded work, four could be reproduced and one remained unresolved. I would ask a board which business capability the continuity claim is intended to support and what has actually been demonstrated. The answer should distinguish possession of materials, rights to use them, technical reproducibility and readiness to operate. Our exercise did not trigger a supplier exit or prove unrestricted maintenance rights. Directors needed to see the remaining dependency and the cost of addressing it, rather than infer that an archive made the company independent. I would encourage a bounded statement that can support the next decision, with management and professional advisers responsible for the technical and contractual work beneath it.
02
Removing copied contacts does not complete every testing obligation
Nine datasets contained real customer-contact details. The replacement approach supported fifty-eight of sixty-five defined scenarios, leaving seven for a separate controlled method. I would ask directors how management protects sensitive material while preserving an honest account of testing. A privacy-conscious change should not be reported as complete coverage if important cases remain outside it. Equally, the convenience of familiar examples is not sufficient reason to copy real contacts into every development environment. Our response required scenario owners, handling review and funded replacement work. The board's contribution is to examine whether the remaining limits have an accountable owner and an appropriate decision path, while avoiding unnecessary access to the underlying customer records. That supports both information stewardship and a credible quality account without making directors the people who design each test.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding which business activities depend on specialist software and how management explains that reliance. With the chair and executive team, I would review one significant application from investment approval through current support, including the ownership of custom behaviour and the evidence available for continuity. Any technical discussion would use authorised material and an agreed purpose; I would not ask developers to disclose code merely to satisfy a director's curiosity. Twenty-three days is an initial annual allowance for induction, preparation, meetings and travel, with unexpected work discussed explicitly. I would seek feedback on whether my questions help the board assess a decision or draw it into delivery. A useful first-year contribution might make one recurring continuity claim more precise, while leaving management responsible for the technical programme and the advisers responsible for specialist conclusions.
Conflicts and their management
My executive role exposes me to supplier terms, source materials, system weaknesses and confidential business records. A prospective outside appointment must be screened for relationships involving our owners, industrial investor, software partners, customers and competing manufacturers. No equity does not mean no conflict. I would disclose relevant connections and obtain appropriate advice on eligibility, independence and committee participation before sensitive materials are exchanged. I would not use another company's board access to gather software pricing or technical knowledge for my employer, nor carry our code into its deliberations. Repeated exclusion from central technology decisions could make the intended contribution ineffective. The time commitment also needs review when an upgrade or service issue demands attention at either business. I would prefer to decline a poorly matched role rather than accept a title that cannot protect confidentiality and provide useful oversight.
My independence statement
I am an employed CIO with no company equity or statutory directorship. Any prospective outside role requires its own assessment of eligibility, relationships and independence.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Pervqathi Abrasive Products
Invited enterprise technology and continuity reviews
April 2021–present
Presents IT investment, maintainability and supplier-dependence evidence as CIO; no statutory appointment or committee membership.