Working Capital Committee Adviser — Technology Supplier Finance Choices

The mandate

A technology group's working-capital committee is considering several supplier-finance propositions but cannot yet compare their full economic and operating consequences. Proposals emphasise cash released by longer settlement terms, while supplier participation, financing charges and programme continuity receive less attention. The recurring question is whether a programme creates durable value or merely redistributes financing pressure. Beginning on 26 October 2026, this eight-month advisory retainer adds an experienced payable and shared-services perspective to that choice, without recommending a financing product on behalf of any provider.

You will challenge how the committee distinguishes ordinary payable obligations, optional supplier participation and the consequences of programme withdrawal. Smaller specialist suppliers may accept an arrangement for reasons that do not demonstrate sustainable economics; delayed invoice approval can also prevent them accessing its advertised benefit. The committee needs scenarios linking term changes, approval readiness, supplier charges and continuity requirements. Accounting presentation and legal interpretation remain with the controller and counsel. The adviser's contribution is to expose unanswered operational and economic questions before those specialists and directors make their decisions.

Four working days each month cover two analytical sessions, a written challenge note and focused discussions with existing executives. Monthly working-capital committee attendance is included in the retainer in addition to those days; the two planned India workshops use the reserved working allocation. Complete requests receive a substantive reply within three business days. At month eight the chair may propose a further written engagement of no more than twelve months; finance committee approval and newly agreed reserved capacity and retainer are required before continuation. Extra sessions require written agreement rather than an unrestricted expectation of continuous availability.

This appointment carries no line authority over procurement or payable staff and no executive responsibility for financing, supplier terms or programme operation. Directors retain approval; treasury and procurement conduct negotiations; operating managers execute accepted arrangements. No directorship or fiduciary appointment is offered. Up to two other non-competing retainers may be held if reserved capacity remains intact. Work for a bidding lender, supplier-finance platform or materially affected supplier requires disclosure before access and an agreed recusal or termination where neutrality cannot be protected through appropriate information separation.

What you will own

• Challenge proposed cash-release benefits against invoice approval timing, supplier participation and financing charges, asking the committee to distinguish gross term extension from value that remains after implementation and continuity costs.
• Test supplier segmentation assumptions using criticality, bargaining position and access to alternatives, exposing where apparently voluntary participation may mask an arrangement that suppliers cannot sustain commercially.
• Shape downside scenarios for provider withdrawal or reduced financing availability, pressing directors to identify obligations and operational responses rather than assume programme capacity remains permanently available.
• Question the evidence behind participation forecasts, distinguishing eligible invoices, approved obligations and suppliers that have actually chosen the programme instead of treating those populations as interchangeable.
• Recommend operating questions for procurement and payable leaders concerning disputed invoices, approval delays and complaint routes, leaving ownership of supplier engagement and corrective execution with existing management.
• Review committee papers for unresolved accounting and legal questions, encouraging explicit specialist conclusions before economic comparisons rely on a preferred presentation of financing or settlement obligations.
• Counsel the chair on decision gates that permit a limited trial, redesign or deferral, preserving those alternatives when a proposed provider urges commitment before operational evidence is sufficiently mature.

Candidate qualifications

• Show working-capital judgement from a supplier-heavy technology, consulting or financial-services environment. Describe a proposed term or financing change you challenged after examining its consequences for invoice readiness and supplier behaviour. The discussion will test how you distinguished improved reported cash from a durable economic outcome, including alternatives you made visible when the first proposal appeared attractive.
• Bring 22–28 years of finance-operations, payable or shared-services experience with credible senior engagement across procurement and treasury. Direct responsibility for selling or structuring a financing product is not required. You must understand the operating chain well enough to question participation and approval assumptions, while recognising that accounting classification, legal rights and facility execution belong with their authorised specialists.
• Evidence constructive committee influence where you had no management authority over the people supplying the analysis. Explain how you preserved uncertainty, asked for consequential evidence and remained independent when sponsors favoured a particular option. You should be able to discuss supplier criticality and fair treatment without claiming to determine legal standards or substitute personal opinion for contractual review.
• Reserve four days monthly and the included committee session, with a practical method for protecting several confidential engagements. Disclose provider, supplier and advisory relationships that could bias the work or limit access. Strong analytical finance competence and measured writing are essential: the committee needs a clear challenge note showing decisions and unanswered questions, not an expansive report that obscures the point of disagreement.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 9 October 2026. Mandate reference CVU-ADV-2026-IND-130.