Naotaka Mizunari · Chief Information Officer · Japan
How I could help directors question the operating assumptions in a plan
My contribution to a board
I could help directors examine the relationship between an enterprise's common systems and the conditions under which its plants actually operate. My experience concerns the points where a technically plausible account can become an unsupported operating claim: a migrated instruction, an automatically proposed sequence or a favourable model score. I would bring questions about who has assessed the evidence, which conditions remain outside the model and how a later change reaches the relevant decision maker. I would not offer to certify plant safety or take over quality judgement.
Since becoming CIO in January 2021, I have presented these matters to Kosemori's directors. I have no experience of serving as a director myself. A seat would require me to move from advocating an executive recommendation to joining a collective assessment of the whole enterprise. I would need to listen beyond the technology agenda and recognise when another director's expertise should lead. My contribution would be strongest where the board wants a practical examination of operating dependence, with an equally clear understanding of the limits of my background.
Judgement in practice
01
Examining who authorised the common account
The eighty-four work-order disagreements could have been made to disappear through a conversion rule. Instead, engineering and production owners resolved the instructions before the technical route was treated as ready. For directors, the relevant question is whether management has identified the authority behind a consequential record. I would ask who agreed the definition, what disagreement remains and how a change will be communicated after the programme closes. I would not ask the board to select a routing or engineering revision. The oversight contribution is to ensure that a report of successful migration does not conceal operating decisions the project team was never authorised to make on the enterprise's behalf.
02
Reading the full account of a promising experiment
Our image pilot produced useful findings, false flags and missed labelled defects. I supported a bounded decision-support use while keeping product disposition with quality colleagues. At board level, I would ask whether an investment paper presents the errors and operating consequences as clearly as the attractive result. I would also examine how the trial material relates to the proposed use and who will own continuing evaluation. A positive technical finding can justify further work without supporting the most ambitious deployment. I would bring that distinction to the discussion while relying on the appropriate sector specialists to assess consequences outside my expertise, rather than treating a model score as a complete business judgement.
03
Challenging a precise number with an incomplete basis
The energy-information pilot showed why a report can look exact before its measurements are aligned. Eight of forty-eight machines had timing differences that undermined the intended fifteen-minute attribution. I would use that experience to ask management what conditions support a comparative measure and whether important qualifications survive when the figure reaches the board. Correcting the clocks created a more usable evidence base for the defined period; it did not itself save energy. The wider governance question is whether an enterprise distinguishes measurement capability, an operating intervention and the outcome attributed to that intervention. I would encourage a clear account of each before accepting a causal benefit claim in a major investment review.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the company's operating footprint and the commitments its plants make to one another and to customers. Through an agreed induction, I would examine how planning, engineering and actual production information reach the board. Site visits would be useful not to audit individual operators, but to learn the context behind the reports and the authority of the people who use them. I would read a small number of prior investment decisions alongside their later operating accounts and discuss the differences with management through the proper board process.
I would also study the company's financial position, risk priorities and governance responsibilities outside technology. My early contribution should not be a catalogue of changes based on Kosemori's arrangements. I would first learn what works in the new company and where directors need a clearer explanation. With the chair and fellow directors, I would identify the questions my experience can help address and the learning I need to undertake. I would expect to evaluate management's choices, not become an informal escalation route for its technology team or bypass the executives accountable for operating decisions.
Conflicts and their management
The industrial technology ecosystem creates relationships that require examination before an external appointment. My employer may buy equipment, supply components or share partners with the proposed company. I would disclose relevant connections and consider whether confidential knowledge or participation in a decision could place my duties in tension. A company outside the same product category is not automatically free of conflict. The assessment needs to follow the actual commercial relationships and continue as those relationships change.
Eighteen days annually is my proposed ordinary capacity, including preparation and meetings, subject to employer consent. I would discuss site visits, committee demands, induction and exceptional events before agreeing that it is sufficient. I hold no present directorships and make no general independence claim. I have not registered in the IICA Databank; a potential Indian role would require appointment-specific advice and assessment rather than an assumption based on this profile. If the time, relationship or competence requirements do not fit, the responsible decision is to decline, even where the proposed title or enterprise is attractive.
My independence statement
Any proposed seat requires assessment of my employer, customer, supplier and ownership relationships; I do not infer independence from having no existing directorship.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Kosemori Motion
Board technology investment and manufacturing-dependence discussions
January 2021–present
CIO presenting executive evidence and recommendations; no directorship or committee membership.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I do not claim IICA Databank registration. If an Indian appointment were proposed, its requirements and my eligibility would need specific examination.
Collective director responsibilities in the relevant jurisdiction
Financial reporting and industrial capital allocation beyond technology budgets
Company-specific conflicts, independence and committee practice