Tashi Verqashi · Chief Strategy Officer · India
I would help a board examine what an expansion recommendation is actually adding. The proposal might add a building while moving existing professionals, report more visits without reaching more people, or introduce a delivery channel whose travel demands reduce usable appointment time. Those are not reasons to reject growth automatically. They are reasons to make the choice and its opportunity cost visible. I would ask management to connect the demand unit, staffing source and financial commitment in the same account, including what remains uncertain. Clinical and other professional judgements should be obtained from competent leaders rather than inferred from my commercial background. My contribution would be strongest where a board needs to compare alternatives before a preferred project becomes difficult to question. Directors should test the recommendation and the adequacy of its evidence while leaving individual service and staffing decisions to authorised management.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board expansion and service-network planning reviews
April 2021–present
Presented demand-unit corrections, the source of proposed staffing and the resource reconciliation behind a home-service option.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy and expansion oversight · Service access and operating-risk oversight |
I would consider a first non-executive appointment in a regional service business making choices about locations, professional capacity or delivery channels. I would look for an experienced chair and established technical or clinical leadership, so my commercial planning experience complements rather than substitutes for specialist judgement. I could contribute as a member to strategy or service-risk oversight while learning director responsibilities; I do not claim readiness to chair a committee immediately. My registration and preparation remain unfinished, and I have not held a statutory seat. Those facts should be visible to anyone assessing the appointment. The discussion should define the expected contribution, the learning required and the relationships that may restrict participation. A suitable board would welcome a question about the denominator or source of capacity before approving a proposal, without expecting me to become its unpaid planning executive.
The seventh-centre proposal used 1,700 visits as if they represented 1,700 potential new users, although the sample contained 340 distinct people. At board level I would ask what population and counting unit support the demand forecast, and whether the evidence concerns current activity or future use. The correction should not end with substituting a smaller number if that number still cannot answer the investment question. Management may need further access research or different scenarios. Directors should also see the cost of deferral, including proposal development and property availability, alongside the uncertainty of proceeding. In our case ₹24 lakh was written off and the preferred property became unavailable. That was a material consequence of a recommendation I had supported. Oversight should make such consequences explicit without using sunk preparation expense as the reason to continue an unsupported proposal.
The eighteen-person roster contained six proposed recruits and twelve transfers. I would ask a board to see additions, internal moves and departures separately, together with the professional mix and effect on existing obligations. A total headcount cannot establish that the right services remain available in every location. Management should explain the alternatives, including a smaller opening, later investment or further recruitment, with clinical and employment advice where needed. The board should not solve individual rosters or assume that shorter appointments repair a capacity gap. It should understand the service and financial commitments it is being asked to support. Our ₹3.8 crore fit-out deferral remained an unresolved investment choice, not an achieved saving. That distinction matters when judging the result of challenge: the recommendation became more accurate even though the growth decision was still open.
I would start with the receiving company's service model and the way its board evaluates expansion. With the chair, I would examine a small selection of investment decisions from original demand evidence through staffing, approval and later operating experience. I would meet professional, finance and operating leaders to understand where their judgements enter the paper and which uncertainties tend to disappear in summary. Twenty-six days is a proposed annual allowance for preparation, meetings, induction and travel, subject to the actual calendar and employer consent. A difficult investment or service issue could need more time. I would ask for feedback on whether my questions clarify the choice or pull directors into designing operations. A useful first-year contribution might improve one recurring comparison between expansion options while I learn the company's specific duties, relationships and risk appetite.
Ralqemi's clinician shareholders, investment shareholder, professional partners, property counterparties and regional service relationships would be part of a conflict review before I received another company's restricted plans. No personal shareholding does not make those connections irrelevant. A prospective board should consider whether the central expansion decisions would regularly overlap with my employment, rather than rely only on withdrawal from isolated agenda items. I would not bring individual service-user information, unpublished catchment studies, staffing terms or property negotiations into the receiving boardroom. The company should obtain appropriate advice on eligibility and independence for the proposed seat. I would also examine whether its geography and meeting demands fit my continuing executive responsibilities. A role requiring repeated non-participation in the main strategy discussion would not offer the contribution the chair was seeking. Confidentiality and useful participation must both be workable.
I hold no shares or statutory seat at Ralqemi. Employment, shareholder connections and service-network relationships still need assessment for any proposed outside appointment.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not completed the registration and governance preparation relevant to a proposed independent appointment. My executive presentations are experience to examine, not evidence of a completed director assessment.