Skip to website
Devika NershaviChief Strategy Officer

Personal correspondence

The larger revenue model carried a different ownership risk

Chief Strategy Officer India

I make growth proposals explain the usable inputs, ownership commitments and scarce capital behind the revenue they invite us to pursue.

The higher revenue number was persuasive until we asked what the enterprise would have to own. In 2023 we compared an illustrative customer-retained-casing service with a buy-process-sell model. The service showed ₹1.9 crore fees and ₹1.3 crore direct costs, while trading showed ₹4.8 crore revenue and ₹4.1 crore direct costs. The corresponding working-capital assumptions were ₹0.4 crore and ₹2.2 crore. I recommended the smaller top line because the extra ownership commitment changed the strategic proposition more than the contribution difference justified.

The larger opportunity is not always the better commitment. I want the proposal to show which inputs can actually be used, which risks become ours and what another investment must wait for before the board sees the headline revenue.

Devika Nershavi

Open to Board appointments · Advisory roles · Executive opportunities

Write to me
Strategy function
27 colleagues
Four heads coordinating enterprise planning and research
Annual function expense
₹6.7 crore
Includes ₹1.2 crore research; project capital separately approved
Commercial and strategy career
32 years
Research practice through enterprise choice and capital prioritisation

A record of service

2021-04 — present
Chief Strategy OfficerDershavi Wheel Services
2016-04 — 2021-03
Head of StrategyDershavi Wheel Services
2010-04 — 2016-03
Strategy ManagerDershavi Wheel Services
2002-04 — 2010-03
Commercial AnalystPevnathi Market Studies
1994-06 — 2002-03
Commercial Research AssistantPevnathi Market Studies
Read the full profile ↗

The larger revenue model carried a different ownership risk

Two illustrative 2023 models offered different kinds of growth. A customer-retained-casing service showed ₹1.9 crore fees and ₹1.3 crore direct costs, with ₹0.4 crore working capital. A buy-process-sell model showed ₹4.8 crore revenue and ₹4.1 crore direct costs, but required ₹2.2 crore working capital. The larger top line did not settle the choice. I recommended the service model because the extra ownership commitment was not justified by the proposed difference in contribution.

I am Devika Nershavi, chief strategy officer of Dershavi Wheel Services in Coimbatore. Our 215 colleagues provide tyre retreading and fleet wheel services, with ₹103 crore FY 2025–26 revenue. Four heads coordinate my 27-person strategy function. Manoj retains enterprise decisions and Asha leads plant operations. Qualified owners determine casing eligibility and release; my team must carry those conditions into a proposal rather than make them disappear inside a growth model.

I had previously failed to preserve that distinction. In 2018 I supported a ₹6.8 crore expansion proposal using a selected 2400-casing collection account without allowing for the qualified assessment that accepted 1500 and excluded 900 from the proposed process. We withdrew the unsupported case and rebuilt its premise. A later capital discussion put three initiatives costing ₹10.2 crore against a ₹6.4 crore envelope. We recommended the ₹3.8 crore process project and ₹2.6 crore customer-traceability project, and deferred the ₹3.8 crore district expansion. The deferred option remained part of the decision. These are fictional selected cases and planning models, not promises of realised returns or technical suitability. I hold a disclosed beneficial 0.1% interest within the employee vehicle and no statutory appointment. A first outside contribution would require further preparation and assessment, with 24 proposed annual days. I would bring the habit of asking what growth obliges the enterprise to own, use and postpone.

The service model required less ownership capital

Illustrative direct contribution was ₹0.6 crore on ₹1.9 crore fees, versus ₹0.7 crore on ₹4.8 crore trading revenue; working-capital assumptions were ₹0.4 crore and ₹2.2 crore respectively.

Collection was not the same as an eligible input

A selected 2400-casing lot contained 1500 accepted by qualified assessment and 900 excluded from the proposed process; the unsupported expansion premise was withdrawn.

The capital envelope made one option wait

Projects of ₹3.8 crore and ₹2.6 crore fitted the ₹6.4 crore envelope; a separate ₹3.8 crore district expansion was deferred.

Strategy authority with a technical boundary

Four heads coordinate 27 colleagues within ₹6.7 crore annual expense, including ₹1.2 crore research; qualified owners retain casing and release decisions.

Current focus

Growth choices that reveal their input and capital conditions

Conversations I welcome

Strategy responsibility and preparation for a carefully selected first outside seat

The leadership record

Trusted with consequential decisions.

Formation

  • Bachelor of Arts in EconomicsNeravthi Economics College · 1994
Devika made the larger revenue model explain what we would have to own, and kept the deferred expansion inside the capital decision rather than out of the presentation.
Manoj DelsarkarFictional Chief Executive, Dershavi Wheel Services
The full record ↗

Contact

Strategy responsibility and preparation for a carefully selected first outside seat

  • Board appointments
  • Advisory roles
  • Executive opportunities
Write to Devika Contact page