Before the commitment, examine the choices it removes

I once put a 12.5 percent growth assumption into a strategy paper when the two business segments, weighted by their starting size, supported 6.5 percent. A small segment’s higher percentage had received the same importance as a segment nine times larger. Finance challenged the calculation before the investment request reached a decision. I withdrew my paper. The correction mattered beyond arithmetic: the proposed programme had been presented as though the forecast had already supplied its justification. It had not. That experience made me more careful about the apparently simple number that allows a much larger commitment to proceed.

At Qelvrathi General Assurance in Madurai, I lead fourteen strategy colleagues through three heads within ₹4.6 crore annual function expense. The company’s ₹1,760 crore gross written premium is a separate measure of business scale. I recommend strategic choices to CEO Paul Devrqami; I do not approve capital, insurance terms or distribution agreements. My work with finance head Naveen Qazvrali follows the assumptions into the decision. In one distribution review, twelve trading brands concealed a substantial dependence on one corporate group. In another, the reach promised by an exclusive arrangement came with restrictions on routes the company might later need.

I would consider a strategy mandate that makes room to question a promising option before its presentation becomes a commitment. The answer may be to correct the forecast, examine common ownership or negotiate a smaller arrangement that preserves future choices. It should not be to describe caution as a result by itself. The costs, limits and unfinished evidence still belong in the account. I also serve as an unpaid non-executive director of an adult-learning foundation, a distinct responsibility with six annual days currently allocated. Any further board role would require its own capacity, relationship and eligibility assessment; that foundation appointment does not establish suitability for an insurance or listed-company seat. I want the reader to see how I arrive at a recommendation, including the assumption I initially got wrong, rather than encounter a catalogue of strategic successes without the decisions behind them.

Current focus

Strategy that makes forecast assumptions, relationship concentration and surrendered options visible.

Conversations I welcome

General-insurer strategy leadership and a carefully assessed additional non-executive contribution.