My contribution to a board
I can help a board examine technology from the perspective of the person using it beyond head office. In my current role, a system can pass a central test while leaving a field officer uncertain about a receipt or exposing more borrower data than the task requires. I would bring that attention to operating circumstances into oversight, asking what evidence supports management's statement and which limitations remain. I can read a technology proposal, follow its dependencies and help colleagues distinguish a feature purchased from an outcome demonstrated. I would also make the limits of my experience explicit. I have led a regional microfinance technology function, not a deposit-taking bank or every form of regulated infrastructure. My useful contribution would combine specific experience with willingness to learn the company's economics and obligations. I would expect the board to retain collective judgement and management to retain operational authority, including the responsibility to select a technical design rather than receive one from me as a visiting specialist.
My first year on a board
My first year would begin with learning rather than a technology redesign. I would read the company's financial and operating reports, meet the executives responsible for its service and understand how customers encounter it. With the chair's agreement, I would seek a field visit that shows ordinary work, including handovers and interruptions, while avoiding a parallel inspection programme run through my own contacts. I would study the committee calendar and the basis on which matters reach the board. Early questions would concern the meaning of management's measures: what counts as a completed action, a protected record or a supported device, and what remains outside those measures. I would ask for enough explanation to make a decision, not require every director to become an engineer. Where a paper exposed a material uncertainty, I would help frame the decision required and the further evidence that could change it. I would review my contribution with the chair and remain alert to the risk of overemphasising the area I know best at the expense of the wider business.
Conflicts and their management
My employment at Zeravien would be the starting point for a conflict review. A proposed company might compete for the same customers, supply technology to my employer or have a lending, investment or service relationship that affects my position. I would disclose relevant relationships and obtain employer consent before accepting a role. The company would need to assess independence and eligibility under the rules applicable to its own circumstances, including directorship and committee limits where relevant. I would not treat recusal as a convenient answer to a conflict so pervasive that I could not contribute properly. I would also keep my employer's borrower records, commercial terms and internal incident details out of another company's discussion. Eighteen days is an initial planning allowance, not a promise that I can accept unlimited incident work. If preparation, travel or overlapping obligations made a seat unrealistic, I would say so before appointment rather than rely on my executive team to absorb the conflict later.
My independence statement
I have no current directorship. Any proposed independent appointment would require assessment against section 149(6) of the Companies Act and other applicable requirements, including SEBI LODR where relevant. My employment, commercial relationships and the proposed company's circumstances must be reviewed; a CIO title or databank entry does not establish independence.
Judgement in practice
01Leaving the reconciliation question open after a release
The receipt-retry change passed its software tests while thirty-seven historical records still needed evidence. I resisted a report describing the entire issue as closed. That decision separated a demonstrable technical result from a customer-account conclusion that belonged to finance and operations. As a director, I would ask whether a closure statement covers every consequence the board has been told about, and whether unresolved items retain an accountable owner. I would not personally reconcile the records or instruct staff to make an accounting entry. The oversight value is in recognising when one successful workstream is being used to answer a different question. I would also ask how management defined the population examined, because an accurate count within an incomplete population can still produce an unreliable conclusion. The aim would be an honest decision record rather than a permanent demand for certainty that management cannot reasonably provide.
02Accepting inconvenience to reduce travelling customer data
Reducing the daily route package meant officers could no longer carry a large reserve of records for any possible reassignment. Operations had to establish an authorised way to cover an absent colleague. I accepted that cost because the previous convenience expanded the possible consequence of a lost handset. The board-level lesson is to examine whose convenience a control exception serves and who bears its risk. I would want management to explain the proposed access, the practical alternative and the consequences for service. I would also challenge a claim that remote wipe had contained an incident when the company only knew a command had been issued. Directors need an account of the evidence available, including uncertainty, so that they can judge the response without relying on the name of a security product. That enquiry should support proportionate decisions rather than imply that every field device can be made risk-free.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Risk committee, where the company's remit and eligibility support the appointment · Technology committee where formally constituted |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 18 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Regional services with field operations · Rural distribution and customer support · Responsible financial services outside conflicting relationships
- Company type
- Privately owned regional company with an established board and separately accountable management
- Company stage
- Expanding its branch or field service while formalising technology oversight
The seat I am pursuing
I am looking for an initial role with a board that values careful questions about how technology serves distributed work. A regional service company with a clear executive team and a willingness to explain its operating model would be a better fit than a seat intended to provide an unpaid replacement CIO. I could join a risk or properly constituted technology committee where the company's requirements and my eligibility support it; I am not proposing to chair a committee at the start. I would want the chair to explain the business issue behind the search, the induction available and the expected contribution from every director. A useful discussion would include difficult choices about service, expenditure and information exposure, rather than a general request to make the company more digital. The relationship should give me room to learn and challenge while preserving management's accountability for execution.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Zeravien Rural Finance
Board risk committee; technology agenda items by invitation
2022–present
Presented field-device exposure, receipt-reconciliation status and technology investment proposals; answered committee questions as CIO, without a board or committee appointment.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Registered with the IICA independent directors databank in August 2026 in this fictional career. I have not yet passed the proficiency assessment and do not claim an exemption. Registration is a preparation step, not approval for a particular appointment.
- Working through director-duty and financial-statement learning alongside databank preparation
- Practising the distinction between a committee question and an instruction to the technology team
- Seeking induction into the proposed company's obligations, committee remit and information rights before accepting a seat