My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what customers are being asked to understand and accept when a product is launched, changed or retired. A bundle can become broader than its central job; a short journey can omit another person whose approval is necessary; a successful-looking transition can conceal customers whose dependencies remain unresolved. My contribution would be to ask whether the product promise still matches the evidence and operating conditions supporting it.
That perspective comes from a defined product remit. At Erlavane I lead 168 colleagues through seven direct reports with A$34 million delegated FY 2026–27 expense. Lending decisions, risk, compliance, treasury, operations, engineering, legal interpretation and cybersecurity remain separately led. I would bring experience of making choices with those colleagues, not a claim that product leadership replaces their authority. The bank’s assets and workforce provide context without making every institutional outcome part of my personal mandate.
My executive board presentations began with the CPO appointment in July 2020. The fictional career includes no statutory seat. Preparing for a first directorship would require understanding collective responsibility and the actual institution’s requirements. I would also need to learn when my product question is material to a board decision and when it belongs in management’s delivery work. The cases would support that judgement through specific choices, including my own approval-flow error, rather than through an assertion that seniority alone makes the contribution suitable.
Judgement in practice
01Keeping a product retirement incomplete when the customer work was incomplete
The legacy invoicing feature had fourteen hundred business users. Although 960 could use the standard export, 440 required additional history fields. I supported an assisted extension rather than let one ninety-day deadline stand in for a usable exit. At the later review, 360 of that group had migrated and eighty remained supported. The cost and incomplete status stayed in the account.
For a board, I would ask whether the proposed closure reflects the customer dependency and the operating work still required. A product retirement can be strategically sensible while its implementation needs more time or support. I would not direct individual migrations as a director, but would seek a clear explanation through management of the material unresolved population, the proposed response and the consequences of proceeding. The example makes no universal legal deadline or completed saving claim.
02Treating a better test result as evidence for further work rather than automatic release
The first cash-view prototype led sixty-seven of 240 owners to interpret forecast receipts as spendable funds. After we separated the view and removed the combined headline, fourteen of 180 owners still misread it. I kept further revision visible rather than claim complete resolution or a full launch. The new test was useful evidence, but its improvement did not erase the remaining misunderstanding.
That would inform how I question a product-readiness statement at board level. I would want to understand what users actually took from the proposition, which limitations remain and how the responsible product and control owners assess them. The board should not design the interface itself. It should receive enough evidence to understand a material promise and the conditions attached to release, rather than be asked to equate an improved measure with an issue that has been fully resolved.
My first year on a board
I would begin by learning the institution’s ownership, governance arrangements, reserved decisions and the responsibilities applying to the intended seat. My banking and payments career would not remove the need for formal preparation and institution-specific induction. I would read committee mandates and understand the existing board’s experience before discussing where a product perspective might add value. This narrative does not claim readiness to chair a committee.
In early board material I would pay attention to the connection between product scope, customer evidence and operating conditions. I would ask how exceptions reach management’s account and how decisions are recorded when a launch is narrowed, delayed or extended. A material issue should be examined through the chair and established channels. I would avoid turning the board role into a parallel product-management function or asking employees to redesign a journey outside the company’s arrangements.
I would seek feedback on whether my questions improve the collective decision. A detail that mattered greatly in one of my earlier products may be less relevant in another institution, while a different dependency may be central. The first year should develop that judgement rather than reproduce my previous employer’s practices. I would also make the limits of my expertise explicit, seeking the appropriate financial, legal, risk and operating input where the product question intersects with a responsibility I have not personally held.
Conflicts and their management
I would disclose current employment, past payments work, relevant suppliers and customers, ownership interests and other relationships that could affect the proposed institution’s assessment. The review should consider actual facts and applicable requirements, not rely on my statement that I intend to be independent. I would clarify which product examples can be discussed and what permissions are needed for further evidence, keeping customer and restricted commercial information out of a public account.
Twenty-four days a year would be provisional until employer agreement, induction, committee duties and exceptional demands had been considered. I would revisit the estimate if the role’s circumstances changed. A selection conversation should establish an authorised process for evidence rather than assume that publishing a case creates permission to circulate the underlying records. All material here is fictional. A real account would need verified appointments, accurate relationships and an honest description of the time and preparation still required.
My independence statement
My independence is not determined. Employment, payments and banking relationships, suppliers, customers and relevant ownership interests would need disclosure and assessment for the proposed institution.