A family office sits between people, legal entities, assets, advisers, service providers and decades of confidential records. Technology decides who can see those records, whether reports can be reconciled and what happens when a long-standing adviser or supplier is replaced.
I provide independent technology assessment and fractional CIO/CTO leadership for private offices and the advisers around them. The objective is not a larger technology programme. It is dependable information, proportionate safeguards and choices the office can still manage years later.
A change of custodian, administrator or adviser should not leave the office without a reliable history of instructions, documents, reporting and entitlements. Look at source ownership, export rights, retention and retrieval before assuming a platform can be replaced.
Reports assembled across custodians, spreadsheets and external administrators can disagree even when each individual source looks credible. Establish definitions, reconciliation and accountability before commissioning another dashboard.
Families, entities, beneficiaries, trustees, advisers, staff, service providers and AI systems rarely have identical reasons to see the same information. Permissions should follow those responsibilities, including when an arrangement ends.
Recovery plans are not a substitute for demonstrated recovery. Critical knowledge, privileged access, records and substitute procedures should be tested against realistic disruption.
Software, cybersecurity, technical debt, dependence on a founder or specialist, data rights, infrastructure cost and technology promises can become obligations after an acquisition. Technical findings must be translated into consequences for the investment decision and the early ownership period.
Confidential records may support search, drafting or analysis, but the choice of hosting comes after the information boundary. Where AI agents can act, access, approval, audit trails, revocation and reversibility are executive questions, not features to add later.
A provider change, AI proposal, acquisition, records project or technology investment can be examined independently before approval. The output is a proportionate written view of evidence, choices, material risks and what should be verified before commitment.
Independent decision reviewWhere the office needs ongoing oversight of systems, providers, information governance and investment-related technology work, a fractional CIO may be more useful than a sequence of disconnected reviews. Where a portfolio company or digital platform needs technical and product direction, a fractional CTO may be appropriate. Mandates have clear authority, time commitments and reporting to the responsible principal or executive.
Fractional CIO / CTOTechnology advice supports, but does not replace, trustees, lawyers, accountants, investment managers and other regulated professionals, who remain responsible for their own work.
My selected work includes the replacement of ageing systems in a trust and advisory environment: unsupported dependencies were retired, an archive became searchable, reporting moved under organisational control and recovery was demonstrated through an exercise. It also includes analysis of supplier dependence, information boundaries and AI authority. Where a piece of material is an illustrative decision pattern rather than a completed engagement, the Work page identifies it as such.
Begin with the responsibility, not the records.
Describe the general situation and timeframe in an initial LinkedIn message. Do not identify family members, entities or beneficiaries or attach confidential documents. If there is a useful role, a bounded scope and secure exchange can follow.