My contribution to a board
I would bring a financial perspective grounded in the physical differences between products that may look similar in a summary. In specialised manufacturing, a warehouse balance, a customer forecast or a supplier demonstration can conceal assumptions that matter to the board's decision. My contribution would be to ask how management has tested those assumptions and what would require the decision to be revisited. I have participated in group decisions as an executive director since 2020, alongside my CFO responsibilities. That experience is useful, but I recognise that an external appointment changes the relationship with management. I would not arrive with authority over the new company's finance or quality colleagues. I would seek a committee role in audit or investment under an established chair, learning the company's product language before proposing changes to its reporting. I can examine the financial consequences of a specification or process decision; qualified technical colleagues must explain whether the proposed use or performance is valid.
Judgement in practice
01Asking what remains useful after a customer changes a specification
A stock balance can remain familiar while the commercial circumstances beneath it have changed. Our slow-moving-lot review required the operating team to identify approved uses rather than rely on a broad product category. In a board discussion, I would ask how such evidence reaches the financial assessment and who is responsible for unresolved lots. I would also separate recognition of a loss from the later work of selling, reworking or disposing of material. A write-down does not empty a warehouse or release cash by itself. The board should understand both the judgement in the accounts and the operating consequences still to be managed. I would want the review to consider customer qualification and product responsibility without encouraging staff to find an unsuitable destination merely to improve an inventory measure.
02Keeping the size of an approval within the evidence available
Our inspection proposal combined a plausible equipment improvement with assumptions that had not been demonstrated across the product range. A smaller pilot gave us a way to learn, but it delayed some intended benefits and required additional work. At another board, I would ask which products, speeds and operating conditions supported the investment model, and what would happen if the narrower trial succeeded. The purpose would not be to make every investment smaller. It would be to distinguish a justified commitment from an attractive extrapolation. I would also expect management to explain the cost of waiting and the decision date for the next stage. A deferred amount should remain visible as a possible future commitment, rather than become a claimed saving that flatters the first decision.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the product and customer combinations that matter most to the company's economics. A plant visit would be an opportunity to listen to operations, quality and commercial colleagues, with access agreed through the chair and chief executive. I would compare that account with the financial reporting and the papers used for major approvals. During the first budget and investment cycle, I would ask where the board receives evidence about changing specifications, obsolete stock and customer commitments. I would avoid proposing a new reporting package before understanding the reason for the existing one. My early contribution should be a few well-founded questions that improve a decision, rather than a long list of documents. I would also review how the board records conditions attached to approvals and returns to them later. By the end of the first year, I would want the chair's feedback on whether my questions are proportionate and useful, including where my manufacturing experience has led me to assume too much.
Conflicts and their management
Our customers buy fabrics and belts for applications that may overlap with a prospective company's products, suppliers or equipment. A conflict review therefore needs more than a comparison of company descriptions. I would disclose the relevant executive and holding-company roles and work through relationships with the chair and advisers before accepting an appointment. Confidential product requirements and commercial terms must not travel between boards. I would also consider whether a recurring issue would require so many exclusions that the proposed contribution becomes impractical. Twenty-four annual days is an initial planning allowance, not a commitment to an unseen calendar. It must accommodate preparation, plant visits, committee work and any foreseeable peak in demands alongside my current role. I would discuss the position again if the company's circumstances changed materially. An appointment that cannot receive enough independent attention is not made suitable by an appealing title or a nominal meeting schedule.
My independence statement
My current holding-company appointment is executive. Any external independence judgement must consider the proposed company's relationships with me and with our group; I do not treat the absence of employment there as a complete assessment.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Specialised manufacturing · Industrial materials and components
- Company type
- Privately held manufacturer with clear separation between ownership, board and executive decisions
- Company stage
- Reviewing product complexity, ageing equipment or a change in customer concentration
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in one external seat at a manufacturer where the board needs to connect financial judgements with product complexity and plant commitments. A family-controlled or privately held business could be a good fit if the owner, chair and executives are clear about their respective decisions. I would want to understand why an additional director is being sought and whether there is room to question a long-standing assumption respectfully. An audit or investment committee contribution would suit my experience better than chairing the whole board on arrival. I would not present myself as a technical specialist in every material, an employment-law adviser or an expert in a new jurisdiction. The appointment should complement directors who understand those areas. I am most interested where management wants a board that can examine a proposal closely while leaving responsibility for production, customer service and execution with the people appointed to lead them.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Audit and financial reporting · Capital investment and product economics |
|---|
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I am considering American manufacturing appointments and have not joined an Indian director databank.
- I review the reasons recorded for board investment decisions, including conditions that later changed.
- I am developing my understanding of how an external director challenges an executive recommendation without taking over its preparation.
Board and committee exposure
Served as a director
Merrowick Fabric Holdings
Full board, in an executive capacity
November 2020–present
Appointment concurrent with the group CFO role; participation in investment, inventory and group financial decisions.