APRIO was started because a governance failure enabled a takeover of a company I had founded.
The company’s technical, financial and legal information was robust and well-documented. We had received 5 patents and were prosecuting more. We had FDA clearance for a medical device. We were ISO-9001 qualified as a manufacturer. We had documentation software to manage quality assurance and technical documentation. We were an audited reporting public issuer. We knew about process and quality assurance, and we had an excellent management information system.
But at the governance level, we had no equivalent quality process and poor information management. There were no defined board/management roles, no documented board processes, and no rules of order at board or general meetings. We had excellent minutes, but nothing to support good decisions. I chose a high-profile but incompetent board chair, who allowed a shareholder to engineer a takeover. The new board fired all the good people who had worked for so long to build a great enterprise. The future dimmed, and shareholders’ value plummeted. In short, the board caused the company to fail.
I believe we should have applied our other quality standards to governance. We should have kept the company on track. If we had managed the board as well as we did our other functions, we could have achieved our business objectives.
So when I started APRIO in 2003, I thought of it as a governance quality assurance system. I wrote then:
APRIO Inc. is a new company, formed by people who think that corporate governance will be a defining business issue in the coming decade. “APRIO” is derived from the Latin “aperio”, or “transparency”: our mission is to enable our customers to meet best practices for corporate governance and reporting.
APRIO is a system of software and services. It will enable our clients to efficiently and economically provide comprehensive and timely information to management, directors, share-holders, regulators, and potential investors and acquirers.
Corporate governance has become a defining business issue. More and more organizations are recognizing that their boards need to work as well as the rest of the functional units, and that to do so boards need resources.
It is past time to treat boards with the same respect we accord to product development or marketing. They need budgets, dedicated resources, and management. Nearly everyone knows their annual marketing or product development budget – no one knows their governance budget. The board generally has limited personnel or technical support. Board affairs are directed by the corporate secretary, who reports to management and is often overworked with priorities outside of board responsibilities.
It was my belief then, and is still my belief today that we need to start thinking about boards like other units of the business, and to start managing them just as well. It is my belief that a qualified, active, and intelligent board can make a considerable difference to the success of any organization.