Harjeet Qervali · Chief Information Officer · India
Presented to the Board or a committee
Invited digital-service and technology-investment reviews
April 2021–present
Presents service dependence, access and device-support proposals as CIO; no statutory directorship or committee membership.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technology dependence and service risk · Digital investment oversight |
I would consider one first non-executive appointment where a consumer or service business wants clearer challenge of digital dependence and investment assumptions. An experienced chair should explain how that contribution complements financial, operating and sector expertise already represented. After further preparation, I would initially join a suitable technology-risk or investment discussion as a member rather than claim immediate readiness to chair a statutory committee. The receiving company must assess the actual appointment and the requirements relevant to it. A useful role would welcome questions about acceptance, practical access and continuing support without expecting an outside director to approve code, run incident response or select every device. I would prefer a specific contribution with honest limits to a broad technology title whose operating expectations are left unclear. The first responsibility would be to improve collective judgement, not to reproduce my current employer's systems.
I would help a board examine whether a technology proposal includes the conditions under which the service becomes uncertain or difficult to use. My experience concerns repeated transaction requests, keyboard journeys and the support life of shop equipment. Those are different problems, but each can be concealed by a demonstration in which the expected interaction succeeds. Directors should understand the business consequence, the evidence examined and the responsibility for unfinished work. I would ask those questions without prescribing an implementation or becoming an alternative technology executive. The receiving company needs qualified engineering, security and accessibility advice as well as its own operating judgement. My contribution should make the investment decision more informed and its later review more honest. I would also ask whether the reporting process allows management to revise a claim supported by the CIO, rather than treating senior sponsorship as evidence that the service is ready.
The rehearsal produced eighteen duplicate records from sixty synthetic orders after responses were deliberately lost. I would ask directors whether a digital-service proposal examines uncertain states as well as successful completion, and whether the operating owner can explain the consequence. The later fourteen-scenario review had ten passing cases and four held cases; it did not establish that the affected flow was ready to release. The board should know that I endorsed the earlier test scope. A useful oversight question concerns the meaning of the acceptance claim and who owns the remaining work. It should not turn directors into test engineers or permit an invented financial benefit based on transactions that never involved live customers.
The device programme had forty-two replacements installed and twelve still pending from the fifty-four selected for transition. I would ask a board whether its completion account distinguishes procurement, deployment and verified retirement. Equipment that still functions can carry a changing support risk, but the absence of support is not proof that a specific device has already been compromised. Directors need a clear account of the deadline, interim responsibility and cost of the remaining work. My contribution would be to challenge an attractive installation headline without dictating daily configuration choices. Security and operating specialists must retain their responsibilities, and temporary restrictions should not become an unexamined permanent exception to the transition plan.
I would begin by learning which customer and operating commitments depend most heavily on technology in the receiving company. Through the chair and agreed induction, I would examine one completed investment alongside its later service account and one proposal still under consideration. I would ask how acceptance is defined, how limitations are reported and who decides when an exception can continue. Twenty-six annual days are an initial capacity estimate, not a promise that every possible demand fits that allowance. Induction, committee work, travel and unusual service events need discussion. I would seek feedback on whether my questions improve directors' understanding or encourage them to manage the technical response. A useful first-year contribution could make an unresolved dependency more visible before another investment is approved. I would also learn from the financial and sector experience of other directors rather than assume that technology risk supplies the whole account of the enterprise.
My current role exposes architecture, service limitations, supplier terms, customer information and the future priorities of Tervqani. An outside appointment needs assessment of connections involving its founders, employee shareholders, technology providers, commercial partners and competitors. I would disclose relevant relationships before receiving restricted papers and obtain appropriate advice on eligibility, independence and committee participation. Having no equity does not remove those interests. I would not use another board's technology plans to improve my employer's negotiating position or carry our confidential service weaknesses into its deliberations. Recusal may resolve a particular item, but repeated exclusion from the central technology decisions could make my intended contribution ineffective. Capacity and any required employer consent also need agreement. I would decline an appointment whose value depends on confidential access or an operating responsibility I cannot reconcile with my current executive role.
My employment and access to commercial and technical information create relationships to assess even without shares or a statutory seat. Any outside appointment requires its own independence and suitability review.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Preparation and registration relevant to a prospective first independent appointment remain unfinished. Executive technology presentations are not director service.