Emmet McParland

WORK HISTORY

ABOUT EMMET MCPARLAND

Most firms assume their management information (MI) is working - until something proves it isn’t. A regulatory visit. A Section 166. Or a board that can’t explain why a metric moved.I’ve spent 20 years in reporting roles, and I’ve seen the same pattern repeatedly: information governance is treated as an administrative overhead right up to the point it becomes a regulatory or reputational issue. By then, the gaps in data lineage, metric definition, and oversight are already baked in.I’m a Chartered Accountant and Certified Internal Auditor. Through Beyond MI, I work with financial services firms - particularly those with significant financial crime, risk, and regulatory reporting obligations - to assess and strengthen the reliability of the information their Executives, Boards, and Regulators rely on. That includes governance frameworks, MI design, data quality controls, source-to-Board traceability, and alignment between policies, reporting outputs, and decision-making.I’ve worked on Section 166 reviews from both the firm and examiner perspective, which directly shapes how I approach diagnostic work.As a Fellow of the International Compliance Association, I also lead postgraduate masterclasses on Governance, MI Reporting and Data Quality, and Data Management and Security as part of the ICA’s Professional Post Graduate Diplomas in Financial Crime Compliance and Governance, Risk and Compliance.The question I always come back to is simple: when your Board or Regulator asks about your risk or compliance position, how confident are you that the answer they receive is actually correct?