My contribution to a board
I bring experience of the obligations hidden inside an apparently finished software programme. A new interface can leave two older consumers dependent on a continuing contract. A repository can exist while the build account for a particular release remains incomplete. A platform can help eleven teams while a twelfth still requires a different support route. Those conditions matter to directors because they influence continuing cost, concentration of knowledge and the credibility of a proposed retirement or investment benefit. I would help a board ask which obligations management has included in the decision and which remain outside the headline.
My executive position is CTO, reporting to the CIO; it does not make me a bank director. I do have a separate non-executive appointment at Averlisle Learning, beginning in July 2023. That experience has reinforced the difference between offering a useful question and directing another executive team. I contribute to collective discussion rather than take ownership of its technology function. For a new board, I would bring the same discipline and continue developing the financial, commercial and sector understanding required to examine matters beyond software. I am not presenting specialist experience as readiness to chair every committee.
Judgement in practice
01A transition with a remaining support obligation
The seventy-two-consumer compatibility exercise produced seventy consumers able to use the new response and two retained on the older contract. I supported coexistence with a cost, owner and retirement condition. For a board, the relevant question is whether the investment account includes that continuing obligation. A programme can have delivered a useful new capability without having retired everything it replaced. I would ask management to distinguish those events and explain the decision still needed, rather than require a single completion label to describe both.
02A useful engineering result with a deliberately narrow claim
The common-platform study observed a reduction from 4.2 to 2.1 days in the median interval from approved request to test environment for nine original adopters. I kept that cohort and stage explicit when two further teams joined later. The boardroom contribution is to test the relationship between the measure and the benefit being proposed. That observation did not establish a corresponding improvement in production delivery or a staffing reduction. A director should be able to support useful progress while challenging an economic extrapolation that has not yet been demonstrated.
03An existing directorship with a different working relationship
At Averlisle Learning I serve on the full board without a committee chair appointment. My contribution includes asking how technology spending supports the learning enterprise and what continuing responsibilities a proposal creates. I do not give its engineers instructions through the board role or treat familiarity with software as authority over educational or financial matters. That boundary has made my questions more useful: I need management to explain a choice clearly enough for collective oversight, rather than solve the technical problem in the meeting and leave other directors outside the reasoning.
My first year on a board
In a first year I would begin with the company's business model, financial position and existing governance calendar. I would want to understand how its revenue is earned, which obligations continue after a customer transaction and where management believes technology creates a material dependency. That preparation should precede a detailed discussion of architecture. The most technically interesting system is not necessarily the most consequential issue for the enterprise.
I would then examine a small number of investment and service decisions with management, following the evidence from the proposed benefit to the operating responsibility. The purpose would be to understand the company's decision process, not to import Talverin's engineering methods as a ready-made answer. I would ask how older services are maintained during change, how exceptions receive ownership and how directors learn when an assumption no longer holds. Throughout the year I would seek feedback from the chair on the usefulness of my contribution and address gaps in my financial or sector understanding. I would not seek a committee chair role simply because technology appears in the committee's remit.
Conflicts and their management
My employment at Talverin and my Averlisle Learning directorship would be disclosed before a new appointment was considered. I would also examine relevant supplier, investor, customer and personal connections rather than limit the review to a direct competitor label. Software relationships can create dependence through a shared provider or commercial arrangement that is less visible than common ownership. The actual company and proposed role determine which relationships matter.
I would follow the receiving organisation's assessment and handling process, including restrictions on papers or discussion where appropriate, and would decline a role if a material conflict could not be managed adequately. Information from one enterprise would not become evidence available for another simply because both use similar technology. I would use public context or properly authorised material when explaining experience. The purpose of disclosure is to support a concrete decision about suitability, not to obtain a general statement that every future relationship will be acceptable.
My independence statement
I would disclose my employment, current directorship, investor connections and relevant commercial relationships for assessment against the particular company's requirements. I do not infer independence from holding a non-executive title.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Talverin Bank
Board technology investment discussions
January 2020–present
Executive engineering presentations through the CIO; no appointment as a bank director or board committee member.
Served as a director
Averlisle Learning
Full board; no committee chair appointment
July 2023–present
Non-executive director of a fictional privately owned adult-training enterprise; twelve annual days allocated alongside the executive role.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology committee · Relevant risk committee with complementary banking and financial expertise |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 18 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Adult learning and professional services · Software-intensive businesses outside current commercial conflicts · Regional service enterprises modernising established applications
- Company type
- Established private enterprise or appropriately assessed listed company
- Company stage
- Renewal of a mature software estate or integration of acquired technology
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in one additional, carefully scoped seat where experience of maintaining and changing software can support broader enterprise oversight. Eighteen additional annual days are a planning proposal, alongside twelve already allocated to Averlisle Learning. The combined thirty-day envelope would need to accommodate preparation and exceptional demands as well as scheduled meetings. Employer agreement and the requirements of the existing board role would be part of that assessment.
I could contribute to a technology committee and potentially a relevant risk committee with complementary expertise. I am not claiming readiness to chair a committee or to replace directors with deeper financial, banking or sector experience. I would prefer a board that values an explicit account of unfinished obligations and is willing to examine the economics of maintenance alongside new investment. The right appointment would make those questions useful to the company while allowing me to contribute responsibly to the full board agenda.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered with the Indian Independent Directors' Databank. Any proposed Indian appointment would require a separate review of the applicable requirements; no exemption or proficiency status is claimed.
- Collective director duties and financial oversight through the existing adult-learning board role
- Conflicts, information handling and the distinction between oversight and executive management
- Further company-specific governance and sector learning before any additional appointment