A board contribution before the attractive assumption hardens
My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine what a proposed expansion actually brings under the enterprise’s control. My experience includes a depot recommendation that confused asset proximity with customer continuity, a regional trial that exposed the cost of availability and a partner proposal whose restriction mattered as much as its prospective income. I would begin by understanding the receiving company’s service, customer choices and existing assurance process. Directors should know which assumptions require another party’s agreement and which obligations management would accept by proceeding. They should also hear the useful part of a declined option, rather than receive a paper that makes only the preferred choice sound reasonable. I could contribute a practical examination of the commercial proposition while leaving transaction advice, field delivery and customer negotiations with the people appointed to own them.
Judgement in practice
01
An asset recommendation depended on a customer decision still outstanding
The depot proposal showed why a board needs to distinguish a capability it can acquire from a relationship another party controls. The facilities were useful, but three anchor customers had not agreed to transfer assignments. I would ask how that condition appears in the valuation and recommendation, and whether the investment still makes sense if it remains unresolved. Directors should not negotiate the customer transfer themselves. They should understand the evidence management has and the decision it is asking them to take. My withdrawal after ₹36 lakh of diligence belongs in the account as a correction to my own recommendation. It does not prove a loss was avoided or make the proposed assets worthless; it shows that the presented case could not support the continuity it assumed.
02
A larger partner offer narrowed the service the enterprise could supply
The exclusive equipment opportunity offered a larger annual prospect than the non-exclusive proposition, but constrained mixed-equipment service. I would ask directors which existing and future customer choices that restriction affects, how exceptions would work and whether the enterprise wants to change its role accordingly. A difference between two proposed revenue figures is not the same as income already lost. Oversight should keep that distinction clear while examining the strategic trade-off. The board might reasonably choose a restricted model in another circumstance, but should do so consciously. My contribution would be to expose the choice and the responsibilities it creates, not to treat non-exclusivity as a universal rule or select equipment relationships on management’s behalf.
My first year on a board
I would follow one material growth proposal from its initial market argument through the customer and operating commitments it requires. Through the chair’s agreed process, I would meet strategy, commercial, finance and field leaders to understand where assumptions are tested and who can change the recommendation. I would read a withdrawn proposal alongside a successful one, because the organisation’s response to an attractive but unsupported assumption reveals something about its decision culture. Twenty-four proposed annual days must cover learning, preparation, meetings and exceptional demands as well as any site visits. I would ask the chair whether my questions clarify the board’s choice or pull directors into running a second strategy function. By the first-year review, I would want a material investment discussion to distinguish more clearly between capability acquired, customer agreement required and continuing service obligation. I would return to that distinction after the decision to examine what management actually experienced.
Conflicts and their management
My current role provides access to customer plans, regional bids, proposed acquisitions, equipment terms and field-service cost structures. I would disclose the employer relationship, my 0.12% interest within the employee vehicle, and relevant investor, customer, partner and adviser connections before receiving another company’s confidential material. The prospective company must assess eligibility and independence against its own circumstances, and my employer must consent to a realistic outside commitment. I would not use a customer’s private intentions or an equipment partner’s confidential offer to improve a separate enterprise’s position. Recusal may address an occasional conflict, but repeated exclusion from the central growth agenda could make a seat unsuitable. Capacity must also allow for a significant executive transaction or service issue. I would decline an appointment that expected introductions to bring customer assignments automatically or treated a director as an informal route to restricted commercial information.
My independence statement
Employer, employee-vehicle, equipment-partner, customer, investor and adviser relationships require specific assessment. My 0.12% personal interest is included within the current employer’s employee vehicle and does not establish independence elsewhere.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Dharvani Network Services
Board strategy and proposed-investment reviews
April 2021–present
Presents regional-service and partnership recommendations through the CEO; no statutory directorship.
Reported to a committee
Dharvani Network Services
Proposed-transaction review through the chief executive
April 2016–March 2021
Reported the depot diligence and withdrew the recommendation before purchase commitment.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Governance preparation and any registration relevant to an intended appointment remain unfinished. This profile records no proficiency result or exemption from an assessment.
Preparing to examine growth assumptions through collective board oversight
Learning to assess service obligations without taking operating or commercial authority from management