Endorsement rejected & review help is needed

Your valuable feedback is highly appreciated to submit a review

Applied - 10th Oct
Rejected - 19th Oct (Rejected in all the criteria)

Network & Security professional with 13 years (Fintech & Telecom)

Letter of Recommendation 1 - Director of a Digital Service Company (One of my former CIO)
Letter of Recommendation 2 - CIO of a government Bank whom I have worked with
Letter of Recommendation 3 - Solution Architect in UK (Global Talent VISA holder) whose one of my Manager earlier in a private bank

Evidence 1 – 2 letters of recommendation for leading the growth of a product-led digital technology
Evidence 2– Appreciation letter from a government University for my contribution (nonprofit government university), My active membership in professional bodies for leading supporting non-profit organization

Evidence 3 - 2 letters of recommendations of being a contributor to a large technology-led industry
initiative (supporting cloud initiative in Fintech and supporting to grow startup business).

Evidence 4 – My publications submitted to a future event and publication done at IEEE in year 2008 for professional publications in major media.

Evidence 5 – Salary/bonus/incentive statements

Evidence 6 – Experience in a local university delivering UK based BSc degree programs to provide the assessing of other people work


How I led the high impacted digital products is explained in the Letter of recommendation 1,2,3 and Evidence1,3,9.

How I supported a Bank to obtains PCI-DSS and supported the maturity of
people/process with the contribution of open source technologies explained in Letter of recommendation 3 and Evidence1.

How I contributed to the growth of a startup company without any commercial benefit is explained in Evidence3.

Evidence 7 – employment contracts of the current Finance Company and 2 previous Banks that I have worked

Evidence 8 – My design documents related to the Digital Technology platforms in Sri Lanka where I have worked and My contribution was explained in Letter of recommendation1, Evidences.

OC 4

Evidence 9 – Two of my researches that are published in the International Journal of Research Publication(IJRP) were reviewed by the IJRP review panel.
Research supervisor recommendation/support letter also attached on page3 of Evidence 9.

Evidence10.pdf – 1st Class BSc Engineering Degree, MBA Merit awarded by a UK University

Assessment panel feedback:

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to qualify for any of the criteria selected and therefore we cannot endorse this application.
For the mandatory criterion, the applicant submitted publications, salary information, letters of recommendation and proof of his work at universities. With the exception of one (in 2008), the publications are all very recent and appear to be the summary of best practices in security rather than new research. The salary levels presented are not in line with what would be expected for a leading talent. The letters of recommendation show appreciation for the applicant and their work, but do not sufficiently show that the applicant is responsible for leading the growth of a product-led digital
technology company as suggested. The work with universities also does not sufficiently show that the applicant has been recognised as a leader in his field.

For OC3, the applicant has presented his work at a number of banks and financial institutions and contribution to a startup. Much of the work is largely what would be expected of someone in the applicant’s position. Obtaining security and compliance standards is not considered a significant contribution and it was not shown what impact this had. Equally, the digital transformation type activities and the security work around them were not shown to be a significant contribution with impact. It is also
very difficult to identify a single person’s contribution to such large projects. As well as this, these are not product-led digital technology companies. The contribution to a startup was also not performed as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee.

For OC4, as mentioned above the papers submitted for this criteria are all very recent and do not seem to be suggesting anything new in terms of research, but are more summaries of good security practice and digital transformation. This does not qualify for this criterion. As the papers do not qualify, the letter of recommendation does also not support this criterion.

Based on the above, we do not endorse at this time.

My Comments

Salary - High Salary in Sri Lanka but panel says its not. Are they comparing it with UK salary? How to prove this?

Research - Most of them are recently published put they give case studies for organizations to align their Security and Digital Transformation Strategy even though they are not fully new concepts. We have seen many companies failed in implementing these so I believe that these research are helpful. Also these publications are the research done through past few months even though they were published in September. Supervisor endorsement letter also available.

My Opensource platform implementations made a significant impact to achieve compliance and enhance sequirity which is not a part of my regular work. I had to do many extra work to achieve these such as scripting, configuration and developments.

Work at University - UK universities specifically screen the local tutor profile and check their academic and career background before approving them to conduct their degree programs and do the project and assessment evaluation work on behalf of their universities. So this does not qualify for assessing others’ work?

Bank’s and finance companies don’t go as Product led digital technology companies ? All these companies I worked for are maintaining quite a large of Technology staff (above 100) to do following as mentioned in Tech Nation guide “The creation of software, processing/storage of data, or the creation/application of technical computing hardware is often a central aspect of their business model.”

Obtaining security and compliance standards is not considered a significant contribution and it was not shown what impact this had - My work beyond day to day job role as explained above helped organizations to achieve this and supported to grow business especially the corporate side.

The contribution to a startup was also not performed as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee - I have done this work to support to grow their business by doing network security design for the products without any commercial benefit. Founder has acknowledged my contribution.

Thank you.

Did you actually work for several banks, or did you work “with” them? Did you work in their Fintech departments and made product-driven decisions?

yes I actually have been working in these banks as an employee in a technical lead/architect role in their Fintech departments and made product-driven decisions related to my area of expertise (Cyber Security and Network Infrastructure).

That sounds solid…not sure if the assessors always understand the technical complexities - I’d definitely explain to them and call out your contributions…

I am not an expert, I am also preparing for my case but seems like you choose the wrong optional criteria.

Looking at your profile you should have selected OC2 and OC3.

Its suggestion expert in this forum can guide your further.

HI @Sameer thanks for your comments. That was the plan initially but with 6th October change, they have informed some criteria on mentorship saying Teaching based on Commercial Agreements are not accepted hence I changed this last minute.