My contribution to a board
I could help a board ask what commercial promise a connectivity investment is meant to support. A network map can show reach without establishing readiness for a particular offer. An acquisition can add capability while changing the character of the revenue base. A new retail position can affect partners who already bring the company to market. I would connect those questions with the decision requested, while asking engineering, operational, financial and legal owners to explain their own evidence and conclusions.
The corridor pilot illustrates how the contribution would work. The institution considered a proposed 1800-kilometre owned network and a leased-access approach with a different period and form of commitment. I would not let the cost figures become a simple subtraction. The board needed to understand the intended service, the control ownership might provide and what a smaller pilot could establish. Twelve activated sites out of twenty by June 2024 gave a partial result; eight pending sites remained relevant to the choice rather than becoming a footnote to a successful headline.
I would also bring experience of correcting my own claim. In 2009 I described 52000 premises passed as service-ready when 18500 had been verified under the offer-specific definition. Catrin Velmsley's challenge required me to change the proposition, not merely add a qualification. That experience would help me question a familiar measure without dismissing its value. The board's task is to understand what the evidence supports and what management is proposing beyond it, with enough clarity to assess the next commitment collectively.
Judgement in practice
01Name the business model inside an acquisition total
The acquisition candidate in the 2016 review had A$92 million trailing revenue, 61% from projects. I would ask how that capability fits the portfolio in its actual form rather than accept an account that turns the whole amount into recurring service income. The 2017 A$74 million purchase was separately authorised, and the project unit remained distinct for eighteen months with A$6.2 million integration expense. The board should hear both the value of the capability and the cost of a less uniform initial proposition. I would contribute to that comparison without replacing the finance team’s definitions or the commercial leaders’ responsibility for actual integration.
02Make the counterpart’s view of a channel choice intelligible
A direct-retail proposal would have competed with six wholesale partners representing 28% of 2020 service income. I would want the board to understand the new customer opportunity and the position being taken toward those relationships. The partner-only response gave up some direct access and led to three addenda by 2022 following A$7.8 million two-year enablement. That result is narrower than a claim that the entire income base was protected. My question would be whether the institution has chosen its relationship with the market explicitly, including the opportunities surrendered and the arrangements that remain unresolved.
03Keep the previous promise inside a future portfolio decision
A proposed bundle change involved 9200 existing enterprise sites. The selected eighteen-month transition plan and A$12 million support allocation described preparation for the change, not completed migration. I would ask how the institution knows what customers would encounter and whether the responsible teams can support the sequence being proposed. A simpler future catalogue has value, but that should not make the existing service population disappear from the strategic account. The board needs evidence about the next step and its continuing responsibilities, with actual contractual and technical matters assessed by the professionals who own them.
My first year on a board
I would first learn the institution's service and revenue vocabulary. Similar labels can carry different meanings across companies, and a measure familiar from Rellaveth may not describe the same commercial condition elsewhere. Management should explain how the board distinguishes footprint, contracted sites, activation and recurring income in its current material. I would use that induction to understand the decisions the board already finds difficult, rather than arrive with a reporting design copied from my executive role.
I would then trace a small set of significant proposals from customer promise to ownership and delivery. The purpose would be to understand where the board receives specialist assurance, how partner interests enter the discussion and how incomplete results are reported. A pilot with pending sites or an acquisition retaining a distinct unit can be informative when its status is clear. I would ask questions that make the available evidence more usable, rather than require management to restate every proposal in my preferred language.
The personal transition would also need work. As a director I would be contributing to collective oversight, not instructing network teams or negotiating addenda. I would seek feedback from the chair on the usefulness and timing of my interventions, prepare for the financial and legal responsibilities of the role and identify further learning with the institution. Committee participation could follow demonstrated fit. My current record does not establish competence to chair an audit, technical-assurance or specialist risk committee.
Conflicts and their management
A connectivity portfolio can involve relationships that are not apparent from a public customer list. I would disclose my employment and relevant investor, carrier, supplier, partner and acquisition connections through the proposed institution's confidential process. A possible role might overlap with a commercial opportunity even where the companies describe themselves differently. Employer permission and appropriate advice would be necessary before I accepted a commitment. Public examples should not reveal network-sensitive material, customer terms or private counterpart negotiations simply to make the profile more persuasive.
Twenty-two days annually is an initial capacity indication, not a limit the institution must fit around. I would examine induction, committee preparation, travel and periods of unusual activity before deciding whether I could fulfil the actual demand. No statutory directorships are held in this invented record. Presenting to the board since February 2020 provides relevant exposure but does not create a seat or resolve independence. Those distinctions should remain visible when the nomination discussion assesses both the contribution and the practical conditions of service.
My independence statement
I would make my employment, investor, supplier, customer and wholesale-partner relationships available for confidential assessment. An institution would need to consider its own circumstances and requirements before reaching an independence conclusion. I cannot establish that conclusion through a public statement of interest.