Evgeniia Gushchina Governance & Implementation

International advisory · Technology governance readiness

Be ready when the next consequential decision tests how the system works.

I help technology companies turn AI, IP and data requirements into clear ownership, controls, working evidence and routines people can actually use.

Discuss a live decision See the work

When the work reaches me

The visible request is often only the top layer.

A document may be needed. The underlying problem is usually ownership, decision rights, missing evidence or a process that nobody can operate.

01

AI use is expanding faster than accountability.

Tools are already inside workflows, but use cases, data boundaries, review points and human responsibility remain implicit.

02

IP exists, but the chain of title is hard to prove.

Employee work, contractor output, open-source components and AI-assisted creation sit in different systems without one ownership view.

03

Data governance lives in policy, not in operations.

The organisation cannot describe the same processing activity consistently across legal, business, procurement, security and IT.

04

A cross-functional change has stalled between teams.

The design exists, but decisions, dependencies, sign-offs and adoption routines are not moving in a controlled sequence.

How the work is bought

One starting product. A system that can keep moving.

AI, IP and data are modules of one governance practice. The entry point is the business decision that makes evidence and ownership urgent.

01 / START

Technology Governance Readiness Diagnostic

A focused 2 to 3 week engagement that shows where external scrutiny will expose the operating system and what to fix first.

  • AI, IP and data baseline
  • one agreed deep-dive module
  • ownership and evidence gaps
  • executive decision brief
  • 90-day roadmap
Start with the Diagnostic

02 / BUILD

Governance System Build

One priority module is turned into a connected operating structure after the Diagnostic shows where the work belongs.

  • roles and decision rights
  • controls and approval points
  • policies and working records
  • registers and evidence architecture
  • interfaces with local specialists
Ask about the Build

03 / OPERATE

Implementation Sprint

The designed system is put through real work so ownership, records, approvals and review routines become visible in practice.

  • populate priority registers
  • move decisions and sign-offs
  • run working sessions
  • establish review cadence
  • handover an operating backlog
Ask about a Sprint

Scope boundary. I work on governance architecture and implementation. Jurisdiction-specific legal opinions, certification, formal assurance and regulated representation remain with appropriately qualified specialists.

How the engagement moves

Diagnose. Architect. Operationalise.

The exact scope changes, but the sequence protects the work from becoming a folder of documents nobody uses.

  1. 01

    Diagnose the system

    Interviews, document review and workflow mapping. The diagnostic separates the stated request from the operational constraint underneath it.

    Output · problem map and decision brief
  2. 02

    Design the governance spine

    Roles, decision rights, controls, registers, policies, interfaces and evidence are built as one connected architecture.

    Output · operating model and working materials
  3. 03

    Move it into practice

    Workshops, sign-off waves, guidance and implementation routines make the designed system visible in daily work.

    Output · adoption rhythm and traceable handover

Selected work · Confidential technology engagement

An operating system for IP and personal data, built from an incomplete starting point.

The starting condition

A software company had no reliable chain of title, no asset register and no shared documentation for personal-data processing. The first request was narrower than the real problem.

The architecture

Work-for-hire policies, an IP identification matrix, contractor structures, asset and decision registers, data-processing policies, incident procedures, processor agreements and practical team guidance.

The live phase

An IP Management Center covering 15 numbered operational domains is designed and visible in the client's working environment. Registries, sign-offs and daily routines are still being populated and embedded.

Working fit

The strongest engagements have a real system to change.

Good fit

  • A cross-functional problem with a decision owner
  • Access to the people who run the current process
  • Willingness to test assumptions against evidence
  • A need for structure and implementation, not a decorative policy

Outside my scope

  • Jurisdiction-specific legal opinions without qualified local counsel
  • Certification, formal assurance or regulated representation
  • Technical ML engineering or security implementation
  • A pre-written conclusion that only needs a signature

Before we speak

Useful context, without a document dump.

Use these public materials to understand the advisory scope, see the reasoning and prepare a safe first conversation.

01PDF · 2 pages

Orientation

Technology Governance Advisory Overview

A concise view of the problems I work on, the ways an engagement can begin and what happens after the first conversation.

Open resource
02PDF · 3 pages

Demonstration

From Trigger to Governance Decision

A synthetic example showing how a customer request can be translated into management decisions, ownership and a practical 30-day route.

Open resource
03PDF · 1 page

Preparation

Before Our First Conversation

Five questions that are enough for an initial fit conversation, plus a clear boundary around confidential and restricted information.

Open resource
View all advisory resources

No documents or confidential material are needed for an initial fit conversation.

Confidentiality & information handling

The first conversation stays high-level.

An initial enquiry only needs public or sanitised context: the decision, timing and what is at stake. If non-public information becomes necessary, I first confirm fit and conflicts, agree confidentiality terms and an appropriate exchange route, then request only what the defined engagement requires.

  • 01Minimum necessaryOnly information required for the defined work.
  • 02AI boundaryNo client-confidential material in consumer AI tools.
  • 03Separate permissionNo substantive disclosure or public case use without prior written agreement.

Advisory enquiry

Start with the decision that cannot remain vague.

At this stage, the decision, deadline, owner and high-level context are enough. I will respond if there is a credible fit.

Initial enquiry. Public or sanitised context is enough. No documents or confidential material are needed at this stage. If there is a fit, I will agree the next step and an appropriate exchange route before sensitive information is shared.