Amal Relqavi · Chief Data Officer · India
I would help directors ask whether a reported measure answers the question on which the enterprise is about to act. A technically valid count can become misleading when its label changes from a movement into a commercial outcome. A current report can also conceal what was actually known when an earlier decision was made. My experience offers useful questions about those transitions, including the source, the interpretation and the cost of correcting an unsupported account. I would not use a board role to prescribe database fields or personally resolve customer records. Management should own the operating response, and qualified specialists should retain their professional responsibilities. My contribution would be to collective scrutiny of the evidence and investment case. A first appointment would also require me to learn the receiving company's finances, people and obligations rather than treating every issue as a data-quality problem.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technology and data-risk committee where constituted · Strategy committee considering evidence-dependent software investment |
I am considering a first non-executive contribution in a business whose product or investment decisions depend on interpretable evidence. A technology or data-risk committee membership could be useful where the board has constituted one and identified a complementary need. I do not claim committee-chair readiness or statutory experience from executive presentations. Formal preparation remains unfinished and would need to be completed as applicable. I would seek an experienced chair and colleagues who can develop my understanding of the whole enterprise, including the areas outside publishing and software. The role should give me a useful part in collective oversight while respecting management's responsibility for its systems and operating choices. I would not accept a seat whose principal expectation was unpaid data consultancy or introductions to my current employer's customers.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered in the databank and my formal preparation is incomplete. I would establish and satisfy applicable requirements before any appointment, without claiming an exemption.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board data-product and platform-investment discussions
April 2021–present
Invited CDO presenter on data interpretation, correction expense and reporting design; not a director or committee member.
The sixteen thousand dispatches were genuine movements, but the label presented them as reader sales. The reviewed account supported 9,700 sales alongside returns, promotional copies and closing stock. I had approved the original interpretation and funded ₹26 lakh of correction. At board level I would ask management to explain the event behind a material measure and the evidence connecting it with the commercial conclusion. Directors should understand where a figure is incomplete or differently defined across the business. That does not mean they should rebuild every reconciliation themselves. The useful challenge is whether the investment or performance claim relies on a measure that can support it, and whether management's correction preserves responsibility, cost and remaining limits rather than presenting a cleaner report as proof of a financial success.
In the 5,000-line reporting review, 312 records arrived late; 266 were accepted and 46 remained unresolved. We retained the issued snapshot and a dated revised view at a cost of ₹19 lakh. For a board, this illustrates why the quality of a past decision should be examined against the evidence available then, while still learning from later facts. I would ask whether management can explain material revisions and whether unresolved entries remain visible. The question is different from deciding the customer's formal accounting adjustment, which requires its own authority and professional judgement. Directors should be able to compare what management knew, what changed and how it responded. A current dashboard that silently replaces its earlier account can make that examination harder even when the latest arithmetic is correct.
I would plan an induction with the chair that begins with the company's business model and material decisions, not its data architecture. I would hear from finance, operations, product and customer-facing leaders through agreed access and review selected investment papers and subsequent outcomes. I would want to understand how the board currently tests assumptions and what evidence directors find difficult to interpret. My questions about measures should follow that learning rather than become a new reporting burden imposed on every team. Twenty-three days is a provisional annual allowance for preparation, meetings, induction and travel, subject to employer agreement and the actual calendar. Exceptional events could require more time. I would ask for feedback from experienced directors on whether my contribution improves collective judgement and whether I am broadening my understanding beyond the technical domain in which I have spent my career.
Before receiving confidential papers, I would disclose my employment and trust-beneficiary position, together with relevant relationships through the UK parent, publishing customers and distribution partners. The company should arrange qualified review of the proposed appointment and any applicable independence or committee requirements. I would also examine whether practical recusals would remove me from the main questions the board wanted me to help address. Confidential customer catalogues, commercial records and unpublished product plans would remain with their proper owners; they would not become examples I could freely carry into another enterprise. Employer consent and realistic time are part of the same assessment. Relationships can change, so disclosure would continue through the company's governance process. I would decline a seat where the unresolved connections or expected informal access to my employer prevent a meaningful and independent contribution.
My employment, employee-trust interest and connections through the parent, publishers and distribution partners would require appointment-specific review. Data expertise does not settle independence or wider board eligibility.