Daniel Parraghy — Applied Systems & Organizational Scientist · Independent Board Member · Switzerland
I bring an understanding grounded in systems science and organizational science to boards that need to determine whether what they see reflects organizational reality or a filtered version of it — specifically the ability to identify the assumptions underlying the design of social systems and trace the structural, systemic, and foundational causes of dysfunction and misalignment they produce.
Beyond diagnosis, I understand how to embed the required changes within an organization's decision-making structures and governance design, as documented in a published case study of a structural redesign engagement with a mid-sized holding company.
My strategic judgment is grounded in nearly two decades across close to seventy organizations spanning all growth stages and a range of deep-tech sectors, including three profitable exits from bootstrapped startups, which gives me the foundation to evaluate whether strategic directions are sound, where their assumptions are fragile, and what their structural consequences are likely to be over time.
My value is most direct in situations where persistent misalignment or structural dysfunction has not responded to conventional interventions, because in those cases the problem is almost always upstream in the governance design rather than in management personnel or execution quality.
I hold the boundary between governance and management with discipline, providing strategic challenge and independent judgment without overreaching into operational involvement or creating dependency.
In situations where board members have attempted to use their position to advance personal financial interests at the organization's expense, I have diagnosed the behavioral causes, proposed a policy as a response, presented the reasoning behind it persuasively enough that it was implemented, and verified that it resolved the problem.
CCV Inc. has operated under two distinct business theses. Following the loss of its original portfolio companies during COVID, the company developed a fund-and-acquire model with a shared services and technology integration thesis. The emergence of AI tools and the resulting shift in the technology consulting landscape led to the decision to restructure the company entirely around a new thesis centered around the founder's core expertise.
That restructuring is currently underway. As one of the individuals who formulated and articulated the strategic decisions driving this evolution, the contribution has been to shape how the company changed direction, defining the reasoning behind specific strategic choices and their implications at each stage.
Where board members sought operational involvement and expected compensation from the company beyond their board mandate, I diagnosed the behavioral causes, proposed a formal policy establishing clear boundaries between governance and operations and prohibiting any compensation beyond the board mandate, explained the reasoning behind it, and as a result it was implemented and resolved the problem.
Governance focus is on whether the organization's decision-making structures and governance design remain fit for the complexity the holding company is navigating and building toward.
Initially engaged as a member of the advisory board, transitioned to the board of directors in February 2025 at the founders' invitation. The company is a stealth startup developing a scalable satellite manufacturing process aimed at outperforming the unit economics of current providers, repositioned toward European strategic autonomy. Governance focus is on decision-making structures, governance design, and manufacturing process design in a capital-intensive deep-tech environment where structural resilience cannot depend on centralized control.
Globally active multi-entity holding company operating across complex, cross-jurisdictional trade environments. Board-level work involves consequential strategic and financial decisions made under conditions of significant geopolitical volatility, where shifts in trade policy, regional instability, and international regulatory conditions directly affect operational viability and require independent judgment.
Scaling deep-tech company with international customers across cosmetics and agricultural inputs. The central governance challenge is how to sustain growth without overextending the cost base or creating underutilization through premature capacity expansion. Board-level focus is on the decision-making structures and governance design that keep strategic growth decisions grounded in operational reality.
Internationally established SME producing specialized components for aerospace, defense, and automotive applications using additive manufacturing. Brought in to provide independent strategic insight and balance the board's existing composition. Governance focus is on the decision-making structures and governance design that allow an established industrial company to navigate technological change and international market complexity without losing strategic coherence.
The primary focus of advisory work across close to seventy organizations, and the subject of a published case study documenting how structural redesign was embedded within a mid-sized holding company's existing structures to reshape decision-making systems, governance design, and the behavioral conditions those structures produced. This includes diagnosing whether existing structures are fit for the organization's complexity and growth stage, determining what needs to change structurally, and understanding how those changes embed within the organization to produce the required behaviors and outcomes.
Demonstrated through the case study finding that an average of 2 percent of operational issues known to frontline employees reached executive leadership under the prior governance structure. The structural interventions designed and implemented in that engagement directly addressed the conditions producing that gap.
Demonstrated through active intervention at board level when members sought operational involvement and expected compensation from the company beyond their board mandate. This included diagnosing the conditions enabling that behavior, designing a formal policy establishing clear boundaries between governance and operations and prohibiting any compensation beyond the board mandate, presenting the reasoning behind it persuasively enough that it was adopted, and verifying that implementation resolved the problem. The response addressed the structural condition rather than managing individual instances repeatedly.
Applied across holding companies, deep-tech companies, and founder-led businesses navigating scaling, restructuring, and organizational design changes, where the governance design that was adequate at an earlier stage of complexity is no longer fit for the demands the organization is currently facing.
Demonstrated through governance contributions during conditions of significant organizational distress and geopolitical volatility, where reasoning clearly from long-term organizational interest rather than near-term positional or personal financial stakes was the critical board function. This includes board-level strategic and financial decisions made under active geopolitical disruption affecting trade policy, regional stability, and international regulatory conditions.
Nearly two decades across close to seventy organizations spanning all growth stages, from early-stage deep-tech ventures to large-scale business transformations and integrations, including three profitable exits from bootstrapped startups. This breadth is the foundation of the strategic judgment brought to a boardroom: the ability to evaluate whether a strategic direction is sound, identify where its assumptions are fragile, and anticipate the structural consequences of decisions over time. It also provides the cross-sector pattern recognition in structural governance conditions that are difficult to identify from within a single industry or functional background.
Ten years as fractional chief strategy, technology, and product officer across organizations at all growth stages, developing the cross-functional structural understanding that informs independent assessment of both the technology and the organizational design operating around it at board level.
Two years of voluntary service in UN/NATO peacekeeping missions through the Swiss Armed Forces, demonstrating the capacity to function with discipline and independent judgment under conditions of high uncertainty and significant consequence.
Research is embedded in all advisory and board engagements. I study how the social systems of my clients function and are governed, and the structural, systemic, and foundational causes of dysfunction and misalignment. Where and to the extent clients have explicitly permitted it in writing, I publish those findings.
In July 2025 I published a case study documenting the shift from traditional forecasting and budgeting to dynamic capital allocation within a mid-sized holding company, covering the redesign of the decision-making structures and governance structures, and the behavioral and cultural shifts that emerged as second-order effects of the intervention. A central finding was that an average of 2 percent of operational issues known to frontline employees reached executive leadership under the prior governance structure.
Registered with a permanent DOI via Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15873461
A record of courses, professional programs, executive education, certifications, and diplomas accumulated over two decades of continuous learning is available on LinkedIn.
Based in Switzerland. Current mandate load: 5 boards, of which 1 is public and 4 are confidential. No cross-directorships that create conflicts of interest across current mandates. Available for mandates where the governance challenge is substantive, the organizational context matches the profile above, and the fit is genuine on both sides.