Rehana Parqeshi · Chief Technology Officer · India

Bring the engineering limit into the investment discussion

My contribution to a board

I would contribute experience of making a technical qualification visible when it has an immediate commercial cost. Our board had to consider a ₹1.2 crore optical correction, a reduced supported line-rate offer and a changeover process that added an approval step. Those decisions were more useful when engineering explained the scope and limitations of its evidence before directors considered expenditure or forecasts. I would ask a receiving company to show how a component result becomes a product claim, and who can challenge that transition. My current directorship gives me experience of collective decisions, but founder ownership can also make it harder to recognise when personal conviction is carrying too much weight. On another board I would need to ask clear questions without becoming its chief engineer. Qualified management and advisers would retain their responsibilities, and I would learn the product and obligations before applying an analogy from my own company.

Judgement in practice

Investment should repair the condition that invalidates the claim

When glare concealed known missing print, we could have adjusted a software threshold and produced a different set of results. The better-supported decision was to examine whether the relevant feature was represented in the image at all. At board level I would ask management to identify the condition that invalidates the claim and explain why the proposed expense addresses it. Directors should see the alternative, the opportunity cost and the scope of the repeat test. A successful challenge under defined conditions does not establish universal performance. The receiving company may have different technical and regulatory responsibilities, so specialist advice matters. My contribution would be to connect the proposed capital or engineering spend with the reason the earlier conclusion failed, rather than favour a familiar technology or become the person choosing the optical design.

A lower supported offer can be the honest commercial decision

The 600-carton-per-minute proposal allowed 100 milliseconds between packs while the reviewed cycle required 125. The arithmetic made the unsupported part of the promise visible, but the board still had to consider the commercial consequence of withdrawing it. A director should ask whether management has compared the complete system with the claim being sold, including margin and the response to a missing result. The demonstrated 400-per-minute configuration had its own stated conditions; it was not proof about every installation. I would want the revised forecast and customer discussion to reflect those limits. Preserving an ambitious number in a proposal does not recover the opportunity if the system cannot support it. This is a question about the evidence behind a commitment, with implementation left to qualified management.

My first year on a board

I would use the first year to understand how the receiving company defines, tests and approves its product claims. With the chair, I would seek examples where a technical qualification changed a commercial decision and where a proposal proceeded despite uncertainty. I would meet product, quality, commercial and finance leaders to understand their different responsibilities. The purpose would be to see how the board receives a complete account, not to recreate Dalqeni's engineering process. Twenty-two days is my provisional annual allowance for meetings, preparation, induction and travel, subject to the actual calendar and my existing duties. A major product or investment issue could require more. I would ask experienced non-executives to challenge any tendency to respond as a founder-engineer. A useful first contribution might clarify one recurring evidence gap in board proposals, while preserving management's ownership of the product and its execution.

Conflicts and their management

My 30% shareholding, executive role and current director duties are central to any outside-role review. I would disclose relationships involving customers, component suppliers, integrators and competing inspection technologies before receiving restricted material. The proposed company would need appropriate advice on independence and committee eligibility. I would not use another board's access to learn a customer's confidential packaging plans or a supplier's product roadmap. A recurring conflict around the main decisions could make the seat unsuitable even if a single isolated matter could be managed. I would also consider whether the time required would interfere with Dalqeni's own governance and executive needs. The review should include my co-founder and the receiving chair, without treating their consent as a substitute for the company's formal assessment. I would prefer a role where I can participate fully in the contribution sought, rather than repeatedly withdraw from its most relevant discussions.

My independence statement

I am a 30% shareholder and executive director of Dalqeni. Those interests and our commercial relationships require a specific independence and conflict assessment for any outside appointment; my current seat is not an independent-director role.

Committee contribution

Chair and member readiness
Capacity	Committees
Ready to join	Technology and product oversight · Capital and operating-risk review

Capacity and preferences

Time available: 22 days per year
Current directorships: 1
Sectors: Specialist industrial equipment · Inspection and measurement technology outside conflicting markets
Company type: A privately held or growth-stage equipment enterprise with experienced board leadership
Company stage: Moving from founder-dependent engineering decisions to a repeatable product-governance model

The seat I am pursuing

I would consider a first outside non-executive seat in specialist equipment, measurement or industrial technology where my current commercial interests do not dominate the agenda. An experienced chair and colleagues with complementary financial, legal and sector knowledge would matter. I would initially seek a member contribution to technology or capital-risk oversight, not assume that being a founder-director qualifies me to chair another company's committee. My existing seat is an executive one, and the preparation relevant to an independent appointment remains unfinished. A suitable board would want thoughtful challenge on the evidence behind a product or investment claim, including the consequence of a narrower supported answer. It should also be willing to explain what further learning it expects from me. I would decline a role whose conflicts, workload or informal consultancy expectations prevented the proper exercise of director judgement.

Governance learning and readiness

IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered

My present executive founder directorship should not be read as a claim of independent-director readiness. Preparation and the registration requirements relevant to a prospective outside seat remain to be completed; I claim no exemption or passed assessment.

Developing the distinction between founder participation and non-executive oversight in an unrelated enterprise
Reviewing committee responsibilities, independence and conflicts with advisers for a prospective appointment

Board and committee exposure

Served as a director

Dalqeni Package Vision Systems

Board of directors; executive founder seat

April 2009–present

Participated in collective capital and product-direction decisions, including optical redesign expense, withdrawal of a rate claim and changeover-control investment.