Briefing the Board on Technology Strategy: A UK CEO Guide
UK CEOs should brief boards on technology strategy by linking each major investment to a business outcome, a quantified risk and a clear decision. The 2024 UK Corporate Governance Code, issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), raises the stakes: for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026, boards must declare the effectiveness of material internal controls (Provision 29), and technology underpins most of them.
Most boards still receive technology updates as progress reports rather than decision papers. This guide sets out what directors now need, and how to give it to them. It builds on our earlier briefings in the INFORMD resources library.
What do directors actually need from a technology briefing?
Non-executive directors are accountable for outcomes, not architecture. A useful paper answers four questions: what are we trying to achieve, what will it cost and return, what could go wrong, and what do you need the board to decide. Anything else belongs in an appendix.
The expertise gap makes this more important. According to Russam GMS, in its report Tech-tonic Shifts, only 2% of FTSE 350 companies have a dedicated digital or technology representative on the board, and just eight have a specialist such as a CIO or CTO. Most directors are judging technology proposals without a technologist beside them.
- Lead with the decision. State in the first paragraph whether you seek approval, challenge or noting only.
- Translate to money and risk. Express benefits as revenue, cost or risk reduction, not delivery milestones.
- Keep it to two pages. Put technical detail in an appendix the Audit or Risk Committee can request.
Executive Action
- Rewrite your next technology paper so the decision sits in the first three lines.
- Remove any acronym a non-technical NED would have to look up.
- Agree with the Chair a standard template for every technology item.
How should you connect technology to strategy and value?
Boards lose confidence when technology looks like a cost centre with its own agenda. Show a line of sight from each programme to a strategic priority, and state the measure that will prove it worked. Where a programme cannot be linked to an outcome, say so and explain why it is still necessary, for example regulatory or resilience spending.
Separate three categories of spend: running the business, growing the business and transforming it. Directors can then see where the balance is shifting and challenge it. Our technology strategy review template provides a structure for this, and the project review checklist helps test whether a programme is still on course.
Executive Action
- Map every programme above your capital threshold to one strategic priority and one measurable outcome.
- Report run, grow and transform spend each quarter, with the year-on-year trend.
- Name the executive owner of each benefit, not just the delivery lead.
How do you present technology risk without causing alarm or complacency?
Directors need risk framed against appetite. Under Provision 29 of the 2024 Code, boards must monitor and review the risk management and internal control framework and report on the effectiveness of material controls. Technology controls such as access management, change management and data integrity will feature in almost every company’s material control list.
Give the board a short list of the technology risks that could breach appetite, the control that mitigates each one, and the evidence it is working. The UK government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025 found that 43% of UK businesses identified a cyber breach or attack in the previous 12 months, so directors will expect cyber and resilience risk to be treated as a standing agenda item, not an annual review.
- Concentration risk: dependence on a single cloud or software supplier.
- Legacy exposure: end-of-life systems carrying critical processes.
- AI and data risk: model use, data protection under UK GDPR and accountability for automated decisions.
- Delivery risk: programmes where cost or timeline confidence has fallen.
Executive Action
- Align each technology risk to a stated board risk appetite threshold.
- Attach evidence of control testing, not just a rating.
- Escalate any red risk within the month, not at the next scheduled meeting.
What decisions should the board be asked to take?
A board that only receives updates cannot add value. Ask directors for specific decisions: approving investment stage gates, setting the risk appetite for AI use, and agreeing what would trigger a pause or reset. Stage-gated funding is particularly effective because it gives non-executives a natural point at which to challenge.
Consider whether the board has the capability it needs. According to EY’s European Financial Services Boardroom Monitor, published in October 2025, 52% of directors appointed to UK financial services boards in the previous 12 months had technology experience, up from 36% a year earlier. Other sectors are following, and a skills review of your own board is a sensible next step.
Executive Action
- Replace open-ended update items with stage-gate approvals.
- Ask the Nomination Committee to assess technology capability against the strategy.
- Offer a half-day director briefing before major programme approvals.
Frequently asked questions
Present a full strategy review annually and a short decision-focused update at each scheduled board meeting. Escalate material changes in cost, timeline or risk between meetings. The Audit or Risk Committee should examine technology controls and cyber risk in more depth at least twice a year.
The Code does not mention technology specifically, but Provision 29 requires boards to monitor risk management and internal controls and declare their effectiveness. Because technology underpins most financial and operational controls, board oversight of technology is effectively required for companies applying the Code for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026.
Either can present, but the CEO remains accountable for the strategy. A common model is for the CEO to frame the decision and the CIO or CTO to answer technical questions. Rotating the CIO into committee sessions builds director confidence.
Include the decision required, the strategic outcome, financial case, top risks against appetite, delivery status and next stage gate. Keep it to two pages with technical detail in an appendix. Directors should be able to challenge it without specialist knowledge.
About INFORMD. INFORMD provides intelligence briefings, tools and frameworks for senior business leaders across technology, finance, strategy and compliance. Based in Milton Keynes, UK, we help executives stay informed and act with confidence. Explore our full briefing library (/resources/) or access our free assessment tools (/tools-assessments/).
Stay ahead. Subscribe to INFORMD’s weekly executive briefing at informd.co.uk (/resources/).
