Board portals are only as good as the directors using them, because a lack of confidence or trust will hinder their full adoption, say experts.
Story by Jessica Mudditt, originally published in Company Director magazine, June-July 2026, published by the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
A board portal holds enormous potential as a governance upgrade. When used correctly, it provides streamlined workflows and a single source of truth via secure, real-time information. However, the value of a board portal isn’t automatically conferred on an organisation. It comes down to how effectively directors adopt the technology.
Lacking confidence?
A lack of knowledge and confidence around the use of the cloud-based software platforms can limit the potential benefits, says Steven Bowman FAICD, managing director of corporate and NFP advisory Conscious Governance.
“Many directors simply do not know what features exist or how those features improve their contribution,” he says. “If the only exposure is basic document viewing, they never discover tools like annotations, cross-referencing or secure messaging, which actually enhance effectiveness.”
Bowman recalls how one highly experienced director and former CEO never used the board portal beyond opening PDFs. Later, the director told Bowman he didn’t want to be seen to be “fumbling around with it” during a meeting.
Bowman says another board introduced live annotation and note-sharing features, but none of the directors were using it. “When I asked why, several directors said they didn’t realise others could not see their private notes versus shared ones. They avoided the feature entirely rather than risk making a mistake in a formal setting.
Directors tend to prioritise keeping discussions flowing, so they avoid trying unfamiliar features in real time. Bowman adds that while directors are generally capable, the real barriers are confidence and visibility.
Director benefit
He believes the solution isn’t simply more technical training. It’s imperative to demonstrate a clear personal benefit for the director, such as the time a board portal can save them or that it will strengthen their contribution.
There also needs to be the opportunity to practise using the portal outside of the meeting. And it’s preferable to gradually introduce features rather than overwhelm users.
“When directors see that using the platform enhances rather than disrupts their effectiveness, adoption tends to follow naturally,” he says. “The chair can help by normalising brief pauses for navigation or clarification.”
The meeting environment itself can suppress adoption. The chair needs to make it acceptable to ask basic questions without embarrassment. “Quiet resistance often disappears once people feel they won’t lose face,” says Bowman.
Without consistent use, there are serious downsides. For example, directors may rely on different versions of papers, or channels, and meetings become inefficient, with time lost navigating, clarifying or duplicating work. There is also the risk of uneven governance quality, with some directors being better informed than others. Worryingly, there are also security risks. Documents can leak into email chains or personal storage.
Is AI the issue?
Steve Pell, managing director at software platform BoardOutlook, believes most directors and boards have accepted board portals as a basic governance tool. Any debate around whether they are best practice or not is all but over.
He says it is the pervasive distrust around AI within board portals and board software generally that is a bigger factor for their uptake. “AI has reopened the trust question and it has done so in a way that cuts deeper than the original scepticism about portals ever did,” he says.
Pell believes most directors are willing and able to navigate a portal. “The real question is whether directors have enough understanding of AI to know what questions to ask about how it is handling their information.”
“AI has reopened the trust question… in a way that cuts deeper than the original scepticism about portals ever did.”
Steve Pell, BoardOutlook
Board papers contain some of the most commercially sensitive material in any organisation. This includes strategy documents, CEO performance assessments, merger and acquisition deliberations, legal exposures, succession planning and remuneration benchmarking. Board confidentiality is, of course, foundational to good governance, so if AI causes directors to worry that it could be compromised, they will naturally be reluctant to use it.
“When AI is processing that material, directors are asking questions they absolutely should be asking,” says Pell. “Where does our data go? Who can access it? Is the AI summarising our materials accurately or is it introducing subtle distortions we won’t catch because we’re time-poor and relying on the summary rather than reading the full document?”
He believes if directors cannot trust their discussions and documents are secure, they will hold back. “They will sanitise what they write. They will move sensitive conversations off-platform entirely. That is a governance problem, not a technology problem.”
By the numbers
62% of boards still rely on email and PDFs for document distribution
50% of board members could identify someone who should be replaced by a tech-savvy director
70% of boards used AI in the past six months, but 45% haven’t discussed it
Sources: Board Insight, Deloitte, Corporate Governance Institute
Pell notes that during a recent Global Directors Council roundtable hosted by BoardOutlook on AI in the boardroom, it was evident AI adoption at board level is being driven by individual directors rather than collective board policy.
“Some directors are using AI extensively in their personal preparation,” he says. “Others aren’t using it at all. In many cases, neither side has openly acknowledged what they’re doing. Directors are using AI to prepare questions and interpret data. Management may be using it to draft papers. But no agreed norms exist. This opacity is itself a governance risk. Without transparency about where AI is influencing the preparation and framing of board discussions, it becomes difficult to identify where appropriate human oversight has been maintained and where it has quietly been handed over.”
It is imperative boards agree collectively and explicitly on how AI will be used in their governance processes. This will bolster the efficacy of board portals, concludes Pell.
A board portal doesn’t improve governance by existing. It improves governance when it’s used well.