Board and advisory roles
Technology risk nobody on your board can challenge?
I sit on boards and advisory boards of technology-led businesses as the independent technology voice: the person who can read the roadmap, the spend and the delivery record without reporting to the executive team producing them. Former CTO and COO with twenty years in technology leadership, running my own consultancy for over a decade, working with boards internationally.
Most boards can challenge the numbers. Far fewer can challenge the technology behind them, which is where the cost, the risk and the delay usually sit.
Why boards bring me in
Independent assurance the executive team cannot provide by definition
Your CTO should give the board a clear account of the work. Independent assurance is different: someone outside the executive needs to test the roadmap, spend and delivery record without owning the outcome being assessed.
Translation in both directions
Technical constraint explained to the board in commercial terms, and commercial pressure explained to the engineering team in terms it will act on.
Diligence preparation, from the other side of the table
I have raised growth capital at series A and B with private equity houses and private funds, so I know what an investor's technical reviewer opens first.
A steady hand when something breaks
A failed programme, a supplier dispute, a departing technical founder. The value of a standing board relationship is that it is already in place when that happens.
Three ways the relationship is usually set up
Which one fits depends on how formal your board already is, and on whether you want a standing relationship or an answer to a single question.
Non-executive director
A formal board seat with the statutory duties that go with it. Suits a company with an established board that has no independent technology voice on it.
Typically a monthly board meeting plus preparation and ad-hoc calls.
Advisory board or founder advisor
No board seat and no statutory office, so it is quicker to start and easier to end. Suits earlier companies who want the judgement without the governance overhead.
Typically a standing monthly session, with availability in between.
Investor-side technical diligence
A one-off engagement for an investor or acquirer: what the technology, the team and the technical debt actually amount to, written plainly enough to price.
Scoped to the transaction, delivered as a written report.
The difference between a NED, an advisor and a chair, in law and in practice
Where that diligence sits inside an actual transaction, on either side of it, Technology due diligence for M&A covers buy-side assessment, sell-side exit readiness, vendor diligence and first-100-day planning.
Board questions I have been brought in to answer
Board work is confidential, so these are the kinds of question rather than named engagements. Each one is the question itself and the judgement it calls for.
Strategy
Is the technology plan the one this strategy actually needs?
Separating the plan the business needs from the plan the current team is set up to deliver, and saying plainly where those two have drifted apart.
Growth
Will this scale, and what does the next stage cost?
Reading the architecture, the team shape and the run rate together, so growth assumptions carry a technology cost the board has actually seen.
Turnaround
Is the delivery plan credible enough to fund again?
An independent read of the delivery record against the commitments, and a judgement on whether the recovery plan is realistic or optimistic.
Performance
Why is this team slower than its size suggests?
Looking at where the time goes: dependencies, technical debt, unclear ownership, or a roadmap that changes faster than anything can be finished.
Restructure
Is the technology function built for the next stage or the last one?
Assessing whether the structure, the seniority and the supplier mix still fit, including where the business is dependent on one person or one vendor.
Diligence
What will an investor or acquirer expose?
Working through what a technical reviewer opens first, so the board finds it before the other side of the table does.
Working with the existing CTO
Independent challenge and supporting the CTO are the same job done well. Nothing here is a comment on the person in post, and the fastest way to lose a good one is to bring in someone who behaves as though it is.
In practice that means agreeing up front what I am reading and why, giving the CTO the findings before the board sees them, and being useful in between meetings: a second opinion on a supplier, a sounding board before a restructure, cover on a project that has grown past the time available for it.
Where a business wants that support inside the executive line rather than at the board table, that is fractional CTO work rather than a non-executive seat. See how the two differ in practice .
AI on the board agenda
AI oversight a board can actually test
A board does not need the architecture. It needs to know where AI has authority, what it is allowed to trust, how uncertainty is surfaced and who is accountable when an answer is confidently wrong. I bring those questions to the table in a form the executive can answer and the board can verify.
What boards say
“Engaging Tim as an advisor was one of the best decisions we made for our company. Tim brings a wealth of experience, knowledge and a fresh perspective to the boardroom. He has helped us to make better strategic decisions, improved our governance and brought valuable connections to the table.”
“Tim is results driven with all his endeavours, focused on the delivery of on-time solutions to the benefit of the business, an assured change manager who incorporates business change and technology to maximum effect. Tim also excels at closing the communication gap between less technical senior managers and the hands-on development team.”
Is there an independent technology voice on your board?
Send me the shape of the business, who is already round the table, and the question the board keeps failing to get a straight answer to.