My contribution to a board
I would bring experience of products whose information must be interpreted in a physical setting. A drawing can be accurate while suggesting the wrong turn; two correct names can fail to identify the same destination to a visitor; a cached screen can appear confident after its route status becomes uncertain. A board should ask what the company promises in those circumstances and how management knows whether users understand it. I would help examine the task, the evidence and the unresolved cases behind a product claim. That requires input from technical and other specialists rather than an assumption that product judgement covers every risk. The board also needs to see what management has deferred or funded in response to research. My contribution would concern the adequacy of that decision process, not the selection of individual interface elements or the approval of a hospital's routes.
Judgement in practice
01A better research result still contains people who need help
The orientation revision changed the observed task result from seventeen wrong first turns among forty participants to thirty-five choosing the intended direction in the repeat exercise. Five still required assistance. I would ask directors to see those remaining cases, the conditions of the study and the next inquiry proposed by management. A single exercise cannot establish universal usability or justify a claim about clinical outcomes. The board should understand whether the evidence supports the public promise and whether the product offers a practical response for people it does not serve adequately. It should also see the roadmap trade-off: our ₹28 lakh correction postponed a three-dimensional display feature. The question is whether management is learning from evidence and funding the material problem, rather than whether the board prefers one visual design over another.
02A smooth interface may conceal information it cannot substantiate
Thirteen simulated closure tasks continued displaying an old route because cached information remained available without confirmed current status. At board level I would ask how the company distinguishes availability from reliability and what a user sees when that distinction matters. Management should explain the behaviour, the owner of the underlying information and the assistance process agreed with the customer. Directors should not invent an alternative route or assume that a technical connection alone resolves content uncertainty. Our ₹32 lakh revision interrupted the thirteen known stale states and offered a staffed-help option, while leaving further conditions to be tested. That is a bounded result with an operating obligation attached. Oversight should examine both the technical response and whether the customer can maintain the help arrangement the product now depends on.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the company's main product promises and the evidence used to approve them. With the chair, I would follow a few user tasks from the sales description through actual use, support and changes to the roadmap. Meetings with research, engineering, delivery and customer teams would help me see where limitations are recorded and where they disappear from board reporting. Twenty-three days is a provisional annual commitment covering preparation, meetings, induction and travel, subject to employer agreement and the actual workload. A major product issue could require additional time. I would seek feedback on whether my questions improve oversight or draw directors into design execution. A useful early contribution might make one recurring uncertainty in product evidence visible to the board, while I develop knowledge of the company's obligations and risk context.
Conflicts and their management
My employment, 0.4% equity interest and relationships with hospital customers, site advisers and technology suppliers would need disclosure and review for a proposed outside role. The receiving company should assess eligibility and independence with appropriate advice rather than infer them from the small size of my holding. I would not use another board position to obtain customer plans, product research or confidential site information for Dervaqni. Nor would I bring our unpublished studies or commercial terms into its decisions. A company whose central product choices repeatedly overlap with my current work could be unsuitable even if individual agenda items allowed withdrawal. I would review the calendar, travel and potential product-incident demands with my employer before accepting. The contribution should rest on judgement I can explain openly, not on access to another organisation's restricted information or an expectation of customer introductions.
My independence statement
I am an employee shareholder with a 0.4% holding at Dervaqni and no statutory seat. That interest and our customer relationships require review before any outside appointment.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 23 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Information products used in physical environments · Institutional service software and visitor systems
- Company type
- A product company with experienced governance and clear ownership of specialist assessments
- Company stage
- Reconsidering product priorities after user research or changes in delivery context
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first non-executive seat in a product or service-software business where user understanding and delivery context materially affect the offer. An experienced chair and directors with complementary technical, financial and professional knowledge would be important. I could contribute as a member to product, customer or service-risk oversight while completing the learning needed for a first appointment. I do not claim statutory board experience or immediate readiness to chair a committee. The proposed role should make my unfinished preparation and employee-shareholder position explicit in its assessment. I would want to know which questions the board expects me to improve and whether the company is willing to hear unresolved user difficulty alongside positive product measures. A useful appointment would let me challenge how management knows a product works without making me another product manager.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Product and customer-experience oversight · Technology and service-risk review |
|---|
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Registration and director preparation are still in progress. I have not completed an independent-director assessment and do not treat executive product reporting as a substitute for it.
- Learning how directors evaluate product evidence and unresolved user difficulty
- Studying conflicts, committee responsibilities and the distinction between oversight and product execution
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Dervaqni Visitor Information
Board product-priority and customer-use reviews
April 2021–present
Presented trade-offs between roadmap features and observed orientation, naming and stale-information problems, including remaining research limitations.