My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine the banking or business service behind a technology report. My career has taught me to distinguish a component's condition from the work that customers and colleagues can actually complete. That perspective is useful when management presents recovery results, conversion progress or supplier options. I would ask what the evidence establishes, which population it covers and what remains uncertain. I would also want the paper to state the cost and commercial consequence of the proposed response.
My experience comes from executive responsibility rather than existing service as a director. I have presented to board technology and risk discussions since becoming CIO in May 2019, but I do not hold a directorship or claim committee membership through those presentations. An external seat would require learning the organisation's collective decision process and the responsibilities of the appointment. I would bring informed questions while respecting the difference between oversight and directing engineers. The board needs management to own execution; an experienced technology director should strengthen that accountability rather than become an alternative reporting line for the team.
Judgement in practice
01Refusing to equate a restart with a reconciled service
The payment exercise gave management two very different elapsed times: the application returned quickly, while accounting for all accepted test instructions took longer. I supported the service owner's decision to retain the uncertain population rather than release it for the sake of a simpler report. That choice exposed weaknesses in evidence and operating authority, and it required investment that delayed feature work. On a board, I would examine whether management's chosen measure describes the obligation the enterprise has to fulfil. I would ask which unresolved conditions sit behind a positive indicator and who has authority over them. I would not prescribe a particular recovery method from the board table. My contribution would be to make sure the decision rests on a service outcome that directors understand, with the scenario limits and resource trade-offs retained.
02Making a more expensive supplier arrangement explainable
Our supplier review found a gap between possession of source material and internal ability to reproduce important processing rules. I recommended paying more for a structured capability-transfer arrangement rather than pursuing a lower renewal fee while leaving that gap unexamined. Eight months later, the account still contained two rules requiring supplier participation. The experience is relevant to a board because it connects contractual language, practical capability and investment judgement. I would ask management to show what the organisation can demonstrate, what it merely expects and what a changed relationship would require. The answer may support retaining a supplier as much as replacing one. My role would be to test the reasoning and the remaining exposure, without presenting complete internal duplication as an automatic objective or mistaking an incomplete option for a finished exit plan.
My first year on a board
In the first year, I would learn how the company defines its important services and how management assigns responsibility across business, technology and risk. I would read recent investment and incident papers to understand which measures directors already rely on. Conversations arranged through the chair would help me see where the board needs a clearer account, without creating an informal route for employees to bypass their executives. I would pay particular attention to the evidence used at release, recovery and supplier decisions because those are areas where my experience is most relevant.
I would then contribute through the agreed committee remit. If a paper used a broad completion claim, I would ask for the population, outstanding exceptions and conditions behind it. If additional expenditure was proposed, I would examine the alternative and the business commitments displaced. I would not expect every uncertainty to disappear before a decision; I would expect the remaining uncertainty to be understood and owned. At the end of the year, I would ask the chair for feedback on whether my questions had improved collective judgement or drawn discussions too far into operational detail. That distinction would guide my further learning and contribution.
Conflicts and their management
A proposed appointment needs a relationship review that goes beyond whether the company calls itself a competitor. A software enterprise might supply the bank, support one of its important counterparties or seek access to relationships I hold through my executive position. A payment-support business might have customer and commercial connections that make my participation difficult. I would disclose relevant interests early and involve my employer and the appointing organisation's advisers in assessing them. I would not use private banking or supplier knowledge to make an external board paper appear better informed.
Some matters may be manageable through agreed procedures, while other relationships could make the appointment unsuitable. I would not assume that stepping out of an occasional discussion resolves a conflict that affects the central purpose of the seat. Time is another practical constraint. The twenty-two-day estimate includes ordinary preparation and learning, but the board and my employer would need to consider periods of disruption or major change when both organisations could require attention. I would prefer to decline an unsuitable appointment than accept a title whose responsibilities depend on availability or information I cannot properly provide.
My independence statement
I would disclose my employment, supplier dealings, customer relationships and other relevant interests for a specific appointment. I would not infer independence from the absence of a current directorship or from a company operating outside banking. The appointing organisation and its advisers would need to assess the complete relationship and the applicable requirements.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology and service resilience committee · Risk committee, within my technology and operating experience |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Payment-support services outside direct banking competition · Business software operations · Technology-dependent business services
- Company type
- An established enterprise with a separately chaired board and clear executive accountability
- Company stage
- A material platform transition or development of more explicit service oversight
The seat I am pursuing
I am seeking an initial non-executive contribution to an established, technology-dependent business with a clear chair and functioning executive team. A technology or service-resilience committee would be a natural place to contribute; a risk committee could also benefit from my operating experience if its wider expertise is already well covered. I am not offering to chair a committee at entry or presenting myself as an audit specialist. I would want the appointment discussion to identify the specific gap my experience helps address and the learning expected before I take part in decisions. A company undergoing a significant platform change may be particularly relevant, provided its need is for stronger oversight rather than an unpaid interim CIO. The seat should let me help directors distinguish demonstrated capability from confident description, while leaving management responsible for the service and the work required to improve it.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Lanshu Commercial Bank
Board technology and risk discussions
May 2019–present
Present technology investment, service-recovery evidence, migration exceptions and supplier dependencies as CIO; no director appointment or committee membership.
Reported to a committee
Lanshu Commercial Bank
Executive technology investment committee
April 2012–April 2019
Reported delivery dependencies, acceptance owners and release commitments under the CIO's authority.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I am based in China and have not registered with the IICA Independent Directors' Databank. I make no claim of an Indian appointment qualification; any proposed Indian role would require its own informed review.
- Internal board-paper workshops on separating management recommendations from director decisions
- Scenario discussions with risk and operations colleagues about service interruption and escalation
- Learning sessions on the role boundaries of a first external non-executive appointment