Devashish Paurenli · Chief Technology Officer · India
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board product and engineering review
April 2022–present
Present significant design, delivery and product-risk decisions by invitation as CTO; no statutory directorship or committee membership.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk or technology committee where its remit and composition fit my experience |
The first appointment I would pursue is with an unlisted software business whose board wants to understand product responsibility as part of commercial growth. It should have an experienced chair, a functioning executive team and access to specialist advice beyond my own domain. I would want the nomination discussion to explain the particular contribution needed and the company's expectations of directors when a difficult product decision arises. I have no current directorships and am not seeking immediate chair responsibility. My IICA preparation would need attention before any relevant Indian appointment. I would decline a seat based mainly on introductions to treasury clients or access to another company's roadmap. The purpose should be a considered contribution to collective judgement, including the willingness to challenge an appealing growth proposal while understanding the real cost of delaying it.
I would help directors examine the business meaning carried by a software product, particularly where a result looks more certain than its inputs justify. My experience includes defaults, permissions and forecasting features that could change a user's interpretation without changing the apparent purpose of the product. A board should understand those choices at the level of consequence and accountability, while management remains responsible for design. I would bring that perspective alongside directors with commercial, financial and legal experience. I am not an investment adviser or an independent certifier of security or model performance. My involvement with the company board has been as an invited technology presenter; I have held no directorship. My initial contribution would therefore include a substantial learning commitment, and I would seek an appropriate committee-member role rather than offer to chair a committee before understanding the company. I would also ask how directors revisit a product decision after its commercial consequences become visible, so oversight includes learning rather than approval alone.
The missing-balance case required us to decide whether a continuous forecast was useful when an opening input had not been supplied. A caution note would have preserved convenience but left a complete-looking figure available for circulation. We chose a more explicit incomplete state and a client-owned assumption route, including the qualification in exports. On a board, I would ask how management knows what users infer from a product's defaults and how a material limitation survives downstream use. The answer may involve engineering, product and commercial decisions together. Directors should see the alternatives, the cost and the remaining dependence on user judgement. They should not assume that a technically correct calculation establishes an appropriate business meaning, or attempt to specify the detailed interface themselves.
The consolidated-view proposal joined a useful group summary with access to underlying subsidiary detail. Separating those capabilities let us demonstrate part of the product while permission decisions were completed. The narrower release disappointed a sponsor and cost additional time, but it made the scope explicit. For a board, I would ask whether a proposed compromise is understood by the people selling and using the product, and whether its unresolved work has an owner. A phased plan is not automatically responsible merely because it has phases. It needs evidence that the first stage can stand on its own without implying capabilities or permissions that are still undecided. I would bring that question to product-growth discussions while leaving implementation and client authorisation with management.
I would begin by learning the company's customers, revenue model and the decisions its products influence. With the chair and chief executive, I would agree an induction that includes product, engineering, support and commercial leaders, using recent completed decisions as examples. I would review existing reporting before asking for a new risk register or additional dashboards. My first-year objective would be to improve the board's understanding of one consequential product choice, including what the company knows about user interpretation and what it has not yet established. I would ask the chair for feedback if my questions became too detailed or sounded like instructions to engineers. Eighteen days a year is a provisional allowance that includes preparation and induction, subject to employer agreement and the actual calendar. Exceptional demands would need discussion rather than an assumption of unlimited availability.
Our company supplies software to corporate treasury teams and works with technology and implementation providers. A prospective board may have relationships with those clients or suppliers, even when its sector appears different. I would disclose relevant connections through the nomination process and obtain appropriate advice before receiving confidential plans. I would not share client configurations, product roadmaps, pricing or engineering findings from my employer. A limited conflict may be manageable through the company's agreed process; recurring exclusion from core decisions could make the appointment unsuitable. I would also separate a board role from any potential executive recruitment discussion and disclose changes promptly. Independence criteria, committee composition and directorship limits must be assessed for the proposed company. I have not started IICA databank registration, so preparation remains unfinished and no exemption or general eligibility claim should be inferred.
I would disclose employment, financial interests and product relationships before a company assesses independence. Technical expertise and an empty board portfolio are not substitutes for that assessment.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not begun IICA databank registration. Any registration and proficiency requirements relevant to a proposed Indian appointment would need to be completed or properly assessed; I claim no exemption.