March 2026

What problem(s) in boardrooms did you see that led you to build your new platform BoardWise Technologies, and why do you believe board composition is such a critical factor in company growth?

Like all mildly delusional founders, I do have a very polished origin story but it is definitely better told in a pitch than on paper! The more print friendly version is that the general idea emerged after spending years around growth companies and their investors, particularly in the AIM market. Note that I fundamentally care about this ecosystem! However, is it not odd that we measure almost everything about a business with precision, except the board? We track financial performance, share price trends, ESG, operations…and yet when it comes to one of the most influential groups in the company, we rely on networks, availability and intuition. That felt like a gap to me. So the idea behind BoardWise Technologies was simple: can we bring data into board composition and actually measure how well a board is aligned to what a company is actually trying to achieve? Because, quite frankly, boards are an underutilised strategic asset. If you get the composition right, you improve decision making, reduce blind spots and ultimately support better outcomes for the company. And if companies have better outcomes, I would hope the ecosystem (ie stakeholders) benefits too.

As you’ve started analysing board composition through data, what are the most common gaps or misalignments you’re seeing in boards today?

Our MVP scores AIM companies - so these are high growth businesses. I am a big believer in the nuances of AIM companies; they have different growth trajectories and velocities, are at different stages of their capital market maturity, and have different levels of operational sophistication - so a sweeping misalignment is difficult to justify.

That said, there are some patterns emerging. The most consistent gaps are around scaling experience, technology and AI literacy and capital markets fluency. As we build out our benchmarking, we should get more insight on this.

How can the right board composition translate into tangible advantages, in strategy, risk management, or access to capital?

On strategy, the right board changes the quality of decisions. You should get appropriate challenges, better pattern recognition and fewer blind spots, especially at key inflection points such as entering a new market or making a transformational acquisition. On risk, it is more about seeing what is around the corner and less so about avoiding generic pitfalls. A well composed board should bring experience that allows companies to anticipate issues earlier. On access to capital, the board brings credibility, so the impact here should be almost immediate. Investors are more confident backing a business where the board signals that the company understands its growth journey and has the capability to execute it.

Where we are going with Boardwise is to quantify this more meaningfully by linking board composition to outcomes over time.

And the underlying principle is clear here: when boards are built intentionally around what the company is trying to achieve, they become a competitive advantage.

How do you see the role and expectations of boards evolving over the next five to ten years?

Boards are in flux; quite frankly, no one can agree on what a good board should look like. In building Boardwise, I have heard varying ideas from ‘one NED is enough’ to the rise of pop-up boards. This tells me that the model is being questioned, but not yet optimised.

My view is that we will move away from static boards towards designed boards. As data improves, the concept of a fixed group of individuals serving a vague long-term purpose will feel increasingly outdated. Instead, boards will be curated based on what that company is actually trying to achieve over the next 3-5 years. This may mean a larger board at times of increased complexity, or a smaller board during more execution focussed phases. It should also progress beyond skills on paper and factor in how the individuals think, challenge and make decisions as a collective group. We won’t be leaving chemistry to chance! On the role itself, governance will stay non-negotiable, but not the be all and end all. A solid board will operate as a strategic asset, not a ceremonial one. If a company needs support navigating M&A, strengthening investor communication or entering new markets - the board should be built to deliver exactly that. What will feel increasingly outdated (or so I hope!) is the idea that boards are assembled through networks and availability. So, the shift should be towards intentionality; boards built on skills, capability, context.

Even though you didn't ask me about my reading list (hmph!), I thought I would suggest some brilliant sources of information that have kept me going as I have been navigating life as a founder: Zero to One by Peter Theil is just perfect for anyone starting out. I have also been listening to A LOT of 20VC which I highly recommended. And finally, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, by Jules Verne to calm me down before bed in a bid to stave off that 3am Problem (iykyk).

---

Please note: The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the individual financial professional(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Alma Strategic. These insights are provided for informational purposes only and may not be relevant at the time of reading, as market conditions can change rapidly. The information provided should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any financial product or security. Individuals should conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Alma Strategic disclaims any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this interview.