My contribution to a board
I would help a board distinguish the convenience of a technology proposal from the responsibility the enterprise continues to hold. In insurance, a faster communication can still rest on an unsuitable reference, and a completed online journey can leave the needs of another group of members poorly understood. My experience would help directors examine the operating choices beneath the technology description. I would ask who makes the consequential decision, what evidence supports it and how a person can challenge an incorrect result.
I have presented to Caldermere's board risk committee since becoming CIO in October 2018, but I have not served as a director. My current role is to prepare and defend management's account, then carry out the decisions within my remit. An external appointment would require a different discipline: contributing to collective oversight while leaving execution with the appointed management team. I would seek induction and feedback on that transition. I am not presenting myself as an insurance lawyer, an actuary or an audit specialist; those areas require their own expertise alongside any contribution I could make.
Judgement in practice
01A narrower authority for automated correspondence
The assistant proposal originally anticipated very limited intervention in routine letters. Testing exposed outdated endorsements and references from the wrong jurisdiction, so I recommended a supervised drafting scope and retained human release authority. The trade-off was a smaller initial benefit and continuing review effort within a USD4.6 million programme. A later pilot recorded eighty-three substantive rewrites among nine hundred letters. For a board, the relevant question is how management uses that evidence when deciding the next scope, rather than whether it can describe the technology as autonomous. I would ask for a clear account of the decision rights that change, the conditions tested and the operating controls that still carry the insurer's responsibility. I would not ask directors to approve an individual claim or treat a successful pilot as a substitute for the appropriate professional assessment.
02Keeping an assisted route inside the investment decision
The renewal programme could have presented its 6,100 online completions without giving equal attention to the 1,500 members who used telephone or post. I supported a USD540,000 assisted-service provision and retained eight colleagues' capacity. That choice made the programme's economics less attractive in a narrow digital account, but described the mutual's actual service obligation more faithfully. At board level I would ask which population the reported measure covers, what remains outside it and who has accepted the cost of serving that group. I would also distinguish observed channel use from an assumption about why people used it. The example shows a willingness to expose a cost the organisation still has to fund, rather than transferring it into another department and calling the technology programme more efficient.
My first year on a board
In the first months I would learn how the organisation makes and reviews its important customer decisions. That would include its operating model, financial position, principal obligations and reports reaching each committee. I would want to understand where technology changes have altered a decision process and where they have only changed its presentation. Conversations with management and selected service colleagues could help me interpret the board papers, subject to the chair's agreed approach and without creating a private reporting channel around the executive team.
I would then look at a small number of consequential investments or service changes through their complete approval and review cycle. What did the original proposal assume? Which operating owner agreed to the change? What evidence appeared after implementation, including additional checking work or continuing assisted demand? The purpose would be to improve the board's questions and the clarity of management's account, not to produce an alternative programme plan from my own preferences. I would discuss with the chair where my contribution was useful, which knowledge I still needed and whether I was giving sufficient attention to the whole enterprise beyond technology.
Conflicts and their management
My current insurer has relationships with agents, service partners, technology suppliers and other institutions whose interests could intersect with a proposed board seat. I would review those connections before accepting an appointment and disclose relevant developments thereafter. A company might appear to operate in a different part of the market while still relying on information or commercial relationships I cannot properly bring into its boardroom. I would not use a claim file, a private supplier assessment or knowledge of an unannounced programme to strengthen an external recommendation.
The practicality of managing a conflict matters as much as identifying it. If the central purpose of the appointment repeatedly required me to withdraw from discussion, the seat might be unsuitable. I would not assume that a standing declaration resolved that problem. Availability needs the same candour. My ordinary allowance is twenty days annually, but a severe weather event or a major service issue could require concentrated executive attention. The chair and my employer would need to consider those conditions, preparation requirements and any additional committee work before relying on my availability.
My independence statement
I would disclose my executive role, supplier connections and other relevant interests before a board considered my appointment. I would ask the organisation and its advisers to assess eligibility and conflicts in the actual circumstances. I do not regard technical experience or the absence of a shareholding as sufficient to establish independence.