Board Data Adviser — Digital Wealth Management

The mandate

The board cannot settle whether a unified client-data layer is primarily a compliance necessity, an advice-quality capability or a commercial growth asset. Competing narratives have produced a broad programme without a clear value hierarchy or defensible use boundaries.

The adviser will contribute two days each month: one data-product review and one executive or committee session, including quarterly Technology Committee attendance. A time-sensitive question on consent, suitability or data partnership will be acknowledged within forty-eight hours and answered within four business days.

The mandate runs nine months through architecture selection and first use-case approval. The committee may renew it once for three months after month eight; there is no line authority, executive responsibility, data-controller role or approval right attached to the appointment.

Up to three other non-conflicting assignments may continue. Any role with a competing wealth platform, product distributor, client-data vendor, analytics supplier or prospective strategic investor must be reported, with recusal required where the chair finds overlap.

Why the board wants this voice

Technology frames the programme as consolidation, product as personalisation, and compliance as evidentiary control. No current director has built data products inside a suitability-regulated wealth business. The missing perspective is one that can connect lawful use, advice outcomes and measurable economics.

What you will own

• Challenge the proposed client-data domains against decisions advisers and customers genuinely need to make.
• Test whether suitability models use explainable evidence rather than proxies that amplify wealth or channel bias.
• Shape guardrails for consent, purpose limitation, retention and cross-product data reuse.
• Press product leaders to quantify incremental advice quality, conversion or retention rather than generic personalisation benefits.
• Guide debate on identity resolution when household, nominee, joint and entity relationships conflict.
• Examine vendor proposals for portability, lineage, model transparency and switching constraints.
• Advise the committee on a small set of outcome measures that justify each release of capital.

Candidate qualifications

• 18–22 years leading data, analytics or digital-product strategy in wealth, brokerage or retail financial services.
• Direct experience creating a governed customer-data layer spanning multiple regulated products.
• Evidence of applying analytics to suitability, next-best-action or adviser productivity with measurable outcomes.
• Strong command of consent design, lineage, identity resolution, model explainability and data-product economics.
• Experience challenging architecture and vendor choices at executive or board-committee level.
• No commercial dependence on platforms currently likely to compete for the programme.

Non-negotiables

• Two Pune days monthly and attendance at every quarterly Technology Committee meeting.
• Disclosure of wealth-platform, distributor, data-vendor and investor relationships before diligence begins.
• Ability to answer documented urgent questions within four business days.
• Clear acceptance that management retains all data-processing, suitability and investment decisions.

1. 49 words maximum. What governed wealth-data product did you help build, and which suitability or commercial outcome proved its value?
2. 49 words maximum. Which platform, distributor, vendor or investor commitments could reasonably be perceived as conflicting here?
3. 49 words maximum. Can you commit two monthly Pune days and quarterly committee attendance for the full nine-month term?