Board & C-Suite Advisor
I help boards, CEOs, and data/technology executives turn AI, data governance, and modernization mandates into operating models that can hold under executive scrutiny.
Selected Organizations Advised
What Leaders Say
“Placeholder — pull from LinkedIn recommendations and EWSolutions testimonials.”
“Placeholder — pull from LinkedIn recommendations and EWSolutions testimonials.”
“Placeholder — pull from LinkedIn recommendations and EWSolutions testimonials.”
The Problem
AI, data, and modernization efforts rarely fail because the organization lacks activity. They fail because accountability, decision rights, ownership, and governance were never designed clearly enough to scale.
When accountability is implied, it disappears when the stakes rise.
Advisory Practice
01
Independent assessment for executive teams and boards seeking clarity on whether AI, data, and technology initiatives are supported by the operating model required to scale.
Learn more02
Ongoing confidential counsel for CIOs, CDOs, CTOs, CAIOs, CEOs, and executive teams navigating mandates that will be hard to reverse.
Learn more03
Independent advisory for boards, audit committees, risk committees, and technology committees overseeing AI, data, and technology accountability.
Learn moreFeatured Advisory Engagement
When AI, data, and technology initiatives become enterprise-critical, boards and executives need more than activity updates. The diagnostic evaluates seven dimensions of enterprise readiness, calibrated to either the executive team or the board.
01 / 07
AI, data, and technology initiatives now affect strategy, risk, and customer trust. The question is whether senior executives own the business and decision consequences, or whether accountability is only implied and disappears when stakes rise.
02 / 07
Governance fails when everyone is consulted but no one has authority. Decision rights must be explicit — who can approve, who can pause, who can override — or critical calls quietly route to whoever is most senior in the room.
03 / 07
AI ambition often moves faster than data readiness. If quality, ownership, lineage, and definitions cannot support the AI outcomes leadership is promising, no governance model will close that gap retroactively.
04 / 07
Governance has to be designed as a system that absorbs conflict, not a calendar of committees that coordinate activity. The question is whether AI, data, privacy, cyber, risk, and modernization operate as one accountability layer.
05 / 07
Boards do not need more reports. They need risk translated into business consequences they can act on. Decision-useful visibility, not polished assurance, is what oversight actually requires.
06 / 07
Most organizations can report AI and data activity. Far fewer can demonstrate what has changed because of the investment. The diagnostic separates motion from measurable enterprise value.
07 / 07
CIOs, CDOs, CTOs, and CAIOs are being handed mandates without the authority, sponsorship, or decision rights to deliver them. Designed-to-fail roles cost the enterprise twice — in the executive’s tenure and in the program that follows.
Recognition
Dr. Marco's career has been recognized through industry awards, executive appointments, and published works that helped shape the modern disciplines of metadata management, data governance, and enterprise data architecture.
Speaking
Dr. Marco is available for conference keynotes, industry forums, and executive convenings on AI governance, data accountability, and the leadership structures that make technology initiatives hold.
Start a Conversation
Board, C-suite, advisory, speaking, and media inquiries.