Rizal Santoso · Chief Data Officer · Singapore / Southeast Asia
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | A technology or data committee after preparation and an assessment of the telecom experience against its actual mandate |
I would consider a first seat at a telecom or related information business where the board wants a stronger understanding of how management’s populations and relationships support its claims. The opportunity should fit the board’s existing expertise and the questions it actually faces. A technology or data committee could be relevant after preparation, without implying that my title establishes competence for every technical, financial or regulatory responsibility in its mandate.
I would bring an advisory-to-operator career and a willingness to discuss a correction I owed the organisation. The cases do not describe a director already exercising statutory authority. They show an executive learning to keep useful telecom evidence within its proper meaning. I would approach another institution with curiosity about its definitions, not a demand that it adopt ours. The contribution sought is a disciplined part in collective judgement, with appointment, suitability and independence left to the proper process.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Executive presentations on subscription, customer and network evidence
April 2019 — present
Presented the interpretation and limitations of telecom data from the CDO role; no statutory seat or committee membership asserted.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
No Indian databank registration, assessment or exemption is claimed for this fictional Singapore-based executive. Any intended appointment requires its own eligibility and preparation review.
I would help a telecom board examine the object behind a number before relying on the claim attached to it. A population of subscriptions can become a claim about people; sector records can become an inflated physical-site count; voluntary tests can become a statement about every customer. Each change can occur while the copied figures remain arithmetically correct. My contribution would be to ask where the interpretation has moved beyond the relationship established by the evidence.
That perspective comes from a bounded executive role. I lead 162 data colleagues through seven direct reports with S$24.8 million delegated 2026 expense at Navirelan. Engineering, network operations, billing decisions, marketing, finance, legal and privacy interpretation, and cybersecurity remain separately led. I would bring experience of working across those responsibilities, not claim that the data function owns them all or that technical fluency supplies every skill required for a directorship.
The invented record contains executive board presentations from April 2019 and no statutory appointment. I would need preparation for collective director responsibilities and the institution’s specific circumstances. A useful contribution should make the board’s discussion clearer without turning it into an operational data review. I would want colleagues to challenge the relevance of my questions as well as the confidence of management’s answers. My own replay-counting error is part of the evidence for that willingness, rather than an uncomfortable detail omitted from an otherwise polished account.
The 2023 subscription account contained two valid but different populations: 7.8 million registered records and 6.1 million meeting a defined internal ninety-day condition. I supported a presentation that kept both meanings visible, despite pressure for one larger reach headline. The 1.7 million outside the activity condition were not automatically described as lost customers or records to remove.
For a board, the example would prompt a question about what the company is actually claiming and whether the chosen measure supports that claim. I would not assume that a familiar label has one universal definition across markets or purposes. Nor would I impose our internal window on another institution. The judgement was to preserve useful evidence while declining an interpretation it did not establish. That distinction can matter in external communication as much as in internal analysis, but any disclosure decision requires the institution’s own responsible review.
I approved eighty million receipts as a traffic-event count in 2007. Daniel Varneshu’s review identified seventy-four million distinct source-and-event pairs and six million documented replayed receipts. We corrected the account and kept the receipt log, rather than erase the history to make the new number look obvious. The S$720000 response did not establish a billing refund or traffic improvement.
The boardroom lesson I would draw concerns responsibility for interpretation and the treatment of a correction. A leader should explain why the earlier statement changed, what the new evidence supports and which questions it still does not answer. The example also cautions against a broad instruction to remove duplicates: matching attributes can conceal different legitimate events. I would ask management to preserve the basis for its correction while leaving operating and billing decisions with those responsible for the additional evidence they require.
I would begin by learning the institution’s actual governance arrangements, ownership, markets and reserved decisions, supported by appropriate induction. A telecom data career does not remove the need to understand collective responsibility or the requirements applying to the intended company. I would read the committee mandates and existing skill mix before discussing where my experience might be useful. This profile makes no claim to chair readiness.
In board material I would look for the main populations used to explain the business: customers, subscriptions, sites, events and measured experience. The purpose would be to understand how management uses them, not assume that every difference is an error. I would ask through the chair and established channels for clarification where a material claim depends on a relationship the report does not show. Some questions may be answered by a definition; others may reveal a need for further evidence.
I would seek feedback on whether my intervention helps the collective decision. A technically interesting distinction may be immaterial, while a small label change may alter a public or investment interpretation. Learning the difference in that company’s setting would be part of the first-year work. I would avoid creating a parallel analytical function or directing employees outside the board’s arrangements. My experience should help the board examine management’s account, while preserving management’s responsibility to produce and act on it.
Before accepting an appointment I would disclose employment, telecom supplier, customer, advisory and ownership relationships that could matter to the institution’s assessment. That review should consider the actual facts and relevant requirements, rather than rely on a generic statement of intent. I would also establish which examples from previous work may be discussed and which information must remain restricted. A selection conversation should not become a route for sharing subscriber records or sensitive network details.
Twenty-six annual days would be provisional. Employer agreement, induction, committee responsibilities, travel and unusual demands need consideration before it becomes a realistic commitment. I would revisit the estimate if the proposed role requires more time or changes materially. Independence remains undetermined in this fictional account. The website can make relationships and conditions easier to discuss, but cannot resolve them through presentation. Verified experience, authorised evidence and institution-specific assessment would all be necessary in a real process.
My independence has not been assessed. Employment, ownership, supplier and customer relationships would require disclosure and consideration for the intended institution and jurisdiction.