Most Technology risk isn't technical. It's a failure of ownership.
I take accountability for complex, multi-site Technology environments. First I get operations and continuity under control. Then I clarify ownership, governance and decision rights, and lead transformation where there is a clear business case.
Available for Head of IT roles and senior Enterprise Technology leadership, permanent or interim.
Or start with a 90-day Technology Control & Transformation Review →
Based in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. I have more than 25 years of experience in IT and Technology leadership, built across manufacturing, construction, technical installations and infrastructure. These are environments where Technology directly affects operations and continuity. I work in permanent executive roles or through my own management company for interim and transformation mandates, with a preference for assignments where structural change can take hold.
Technology is running, but management no longer has the full picture.
The trigger is rarely "we need more IT capacity." It's a business problem: continuity risk, fragmented ownership, transformation pressure, or investment without enough visibility to decide well.
Availability, service delivery, support, cyber, continuity and escalation need management attention, not another fix.
Scope, data, integrations, ownership, vendors and business readiness are not sufficiently aligned.
Multiple systems, suppliers, standards and local exceptions are driving up complexity and cost.
Priorities, budget, architecture and risk are discussed separately instead of as one decision agenda.
Controls may exist, but ownership, escalation and recovery still need an accountable executive.
Delivery can be outsourced. Accountability cannot.
Stabilise. Structure. Then transform.
Transformation only creates value once the operational foundation and decision rights are under control. Skipping ahead is where most Technology investment gets wasted.
Protect what the business depends on.
Operations, service delivery, support, cyber risk, continuity, critical suppliers, escalation and recovery.
Make accountability explicit.
Operating model, ownership, decision rights, architecture governance, portfolio, budget, SLA/KPI and reporting.
Change what has a clear business reason.
ERP, cloud/M365, applications, data, integrations, digitalisation, automation and AI where they reduce risk, lower cost or create room to grow.
Clear expectations. Room to act. Accountability for results.
I make the objective, ownership and expected result clear, then give capable people room to act. I involve people in decisions, while keeping decision rights and escalation clear.
Clarity
Objective, owner, expected result, decision rights and escalation point are explicit.
Trust
Grows when expectations are explicit, commitments stay visible and management acts consistently.
Autonomy
Specialists decide and deliver within clear boundaries, without daily micromanagement.
Accountability
Matched by ownership of outcomes, transparent progress and timely escalation when commitments drift.
How the two models connect: clear expectations and ownership give people room to act. That is what makes the operating model above work in practice.
Four positions I bring to the management table.
These are the principles I use when making Technology decisions.
Delivery can be outsourced. Accountability cannot.
A vendor can run the service desk, the cloud platform, the SOC. No vendor owns the business consequence when something goes wrong. That remains an executive responsibility. Scope, SLA/KPI, security, exit and recovery are management instruments, not just procurement paperwork.
Cybersecurity is a board risk, not an engineering discipline.
Controls, detection and specialists matter. For management, the key question is who owns escalation, recovery and the decision to pay or not pay. That responsibility should be managed and reported like any other business risk.
Architecture is a management decision, not an engineering diagram.
Landscape, standards, integrations, data ownership, technical debt and vendor lock-in are strategy, cost and risk questions before they're technical ones. Treating architecture as an IT-only artefact is how organisations lose control of it.
AI earns its place through a business case, not through ambition.
I do not start AI initiatives to demonstrate capability. Start with the business problem, data readiness, privacy and compliance, human oversight and a measurable pilot. Then decide, based on results, whether to scale or stop.
Currently completing Harvard Kennedy School's executive programme on the science and implications of Generative AI.
Enterprise Technology leadership, built across different contexts.
Three things run through my experience: end-to-end IT accountability, governance and transformation, and 25 years in operationally critical environments.
VSH / VolkerWessels
More than five years of accountability across two operating companies: strategy, operations, infrastructure, applications, cloud and workplace, cybersecurity, service delivery, vendors, budget, continuity and transformation. Combined budget scope approx. €18.6M, with a compact core team and specialist technology partners.
- Formal CISO responsibility and first IT crisis-escalation point
- Budget and investment priorities aligned directly with the Group CFO of Koninklijke VolkerWessels
- Weekly alignment with the management team
- Accountability for vendors, contracts, SLAs, sourcing and service continuity
- Landscape governed: Azure, M365, VMware, Veeam, Defender/Sentinel, NGFW, Intune, identity/MFA, WAN/LAN/Wi-Fi, disaster recovery
BESIX
Led a team of up to 14 across enterprise applications, ERP, data, digitalisation and application support in a complex Group–local context. Focus: ownership, governance, architecture alignment, prioritisation and executability.
- ERP transformation NAV → Business Central
- Portfolio, project and change governance (CAB)
- Data ownership, master data and Power BI
- Integrations, architecture alignment and Group standards
- Vendor, contract and SLA governance
25 years in industrial & multi-site environments
Roles in Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and India, plus US exposure through Worley / Jacobs, across sites, business units and supplier models. In these environments Technology is directly tied to operations, continuity, safety, cost and delivery. Technology must not only work technically; it must be governable, predictable, secure and reliable for the business.
These are the management instruments I actually put in place. They are easier to verify in conversation than through a claim on a page.
Six situations where Technology became a management question.
Not the technology itself, but continuity, risk, investment, ownership and executability shaped my approach each time.
Enterprise Resilience & Cyber Accountability
When Technology failure threatens business continuity, accountability must be unambiguous.
SituationTwo operating companies and a multi-site Belgian environment of roughly 500 employees. SOC, monitoring, network and server management were partly outsourced.
ApproachAs formal CISO and first Technology escalation point I kept responsibility for risk, escalation, recovery and management decisions. I structured resilience around the questions management needs answered before an incident: who detects, who may act, who coordinates suppliers, who decides on containment, and how the business recovers.
What changedIdentity and access, monitoring, managed network access control, incident escalation, external CERT support, continuity and supplier responsibilities came together in one management model, not a collection of security products.
Executive value: specialist execution can be outsourced. Accountability for business continuity and Technology risk cannot.
Enterprise Platform Modernisation
Not replacing legacy system by system, but simplifying the underlying Technology model.
SituationInfrastructure lifecycle, network renewal, identity, cyber controls, workplace and applications were interdependent. Modernised as separate point solutions, the organisation would simply exchange old technical debt for new complexity.
ApproachOne roadmap: which capabilities were strategic, which dependencies came first, which standards could be consolidated, where technical debt had become operational risk. The direction: a cloud-first, Microsoft-oriented foundation (Azure landing zone, identity and security, M365, Intune/Autopilot, modern network services).
What changedThe target service model moved toward managed enterprise services, including 24/7 monitored SD-(W)LAN with SLA ownership and managed network access control designed around authentication, detection and isolation.
Executive value: modernisation is not a series of technical migrations. It is the systematic reduction of complexity, risk and future change cost. That also creates room to grow.
Technology Portfolio & Investment Prioritisation
A full roadmap is not a strategy. Making choices is.
SituationInfrastructure renewal, cyber controls, network, Modern Workplace, cloud foundations and Dynamics/ERP all competed for the same capacity and management attention.
ApproachI translated the portfolio into explicit trade-offs on continuity, risk, dependencies, capacity, timing, investment and time-to-value. Azure, identity and security became common prerequisites; larger workplace and ERP transformations were sequenced against them.
What changedA decision basis that made scarce Technology capacity visible and forced prioritisation at management level, including what was deliberately postponed.
Executive value: Technology strategy also means deciding what will not be done yet, and why.
Lean Enterprise IT & Vendor Control
Gaining scale through partners without giving away control of Technology.
SituationA critical IT provider structurally underperformed. Immediate replacement would have added operational risk.
ApproachFacts → service gap → secure continuity (including critical backup and directory/identity dependencies) → benchmark alternatives → transition → new SLA terms. I defined the conditions under which a new managed-service partner could credibly take SLA responsibility.
What changedSupplier choice was tied to supportability, platform standards, service levels, escalation, transition risk and exit conditions. The company, not the supplier, set roadmap, priorities and risk tolerance.
Executive value: outsourcing reduces the need for internal execution, not the need for strong Technology governance.
ERP & Data Governance
An ERP transformation fails when software is migrated without bringing ownership, data and dependencies under control.
SituationAt BESIX, the NAV to Business Central transition exposed fragmented applications, weak master-data ownership, manual dependencies and legacy complexity.
ApproachI started with AS-IS and scope, not configuration: business ownership, system-of-record choices by domain, data owners and stewards, master data, integrations, vendor responsibilities, testing, adoption and controlled legacy exit. I worked on this within my governance remit, together with the architecture and data specialists.
What changedUnclear ownership, dependencies and immature planning became visible early, not at go-live.
Executive value: ERP, analytics and AI are not separate technology questions. They rest on the same base: ownership, reliable data, architecture and governance.
Team Leadership & Operating Rhythm
Rebuild collaboration by making priorities, ownership and decision paths visible.
SituationAt BESIX, a team of up to 14 across enterprise applications, ERP, data, digitalisation and support needed a clearer shared way of working across business, Group IT and external partners.
ApproachClarity → Trust → Autonomy → Accountability, translated into an operating rhythm: Team & Focus, 1:1s, Service & CAB, Project Updates, and Group–local alignment and steering. Every forum had an outcome, owner, decision rights, checkpoint and escalation. When delivery drifted, I first tested whether the cause was capability, clarity, capacity or attitude.
What changedA team working from shared priorities and working agreements instead of individuals operating alongside one another, with specialists keeping room to act within clear boundaries.
Executive value: sustainable transformation depends on a team that can coordinate, decide and remain accountable. Leadership is the management system that creates those conditions.
Control first. Decisions second.
Transformation third.
The first 90 days are about creating enough visibility and ownership to make the right decisions, not launching more projects.
Understand what's critical.
- Operations and continuity
- Top Technology and cyber risks
- People and ownership
- Suppliers and contracts
- Spend, architecture, portfolio
Make accountability explicit.
- Decision rights and operating model
- Immediate remediation priorities
- Portfolio and investment choices
- Vendor recovery or sourcing actions
- Management reporting and KPIs
Build the execution roadmap.
- Transformation sequence
- Architecture and lifecycle choices
- Resource and budget priorities
- Business ownership and adoption
- Benefits, risk, governance cadence
One leadership profile. Three entry points.
The right structure depends on the business problem.
Enterprise Technology leadership
Head of IT and related senior Enterprise Technology leadership roles, with end-to-end accountability across operations, transformation, risk and investment.
Leadership during change
Accountability during transformation, leadership transition, stabilisation, integration or reorganisation. Most valuable in longer assignments where structural change can take hold.
Technology Control & Transformation Review
A structured entry point when management knows Technology needs attention but hasn't yet decided on the answer.
Ask about the reviewThe scope changes with the mandate. The standard for ownership doesn't.
Technology should not be a management blind spot.
Growth, integration, ERP modernisation, operational issues, cyber pressure, supplier dependency or a Technology landscape that has become hard to govern are all valid reasons to talk.