Served as a director
Tarneshi Exhibition Logistics
Board business and investment discussions
April 2020–present
Serves as an executive director alongside the CEO appointment; Leela Darvenkar is non-executive chair.
Farooq Velmarvi · Chief Executive Officer · India
The operating obligation inside a board’s growth decision
My contribution to a board
I could help directors examine the operating obligation inside a service-growth proposition. A company can accept individually attractive jobs that together require the same people at the same time. It can buy reusable equipment without establishing the conditions of its next use, or promise availability without explaining who pays for readiness. My experience includes correcting the capacity error I approved and then changing the investment and customer propositions behind the service. I would begin by understanding the receiving enterprise’s actual operating model rather than assume exhibition-logistics choices apply everywhere. A non-executive contribution should make management’s promise more understandable and the assurance behind it more visible. It should not turn my CEO experience into a second operating command or remove deployment decisions from the people accountable for delivering the agreed work.
Committee contribution
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy and service-capacity discussions · Investment and operating-risk oversight where constituted |
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 1
- Sectors
- Specialist exhibition and regional logistics services · Enterprises whose customer promise depends on prepared people and equipment
- Company type
- A private specialist-service enterprise whose chair wants commercial commitments examined alongside operating readiness
- Company stage
- Growing concurrent customer work or investing in repeatable service capability
The seat I am pursuing
I would explore a first outside-board role with a chair who wants the economics and operating conditions of a service promise examined together. My present statutory experience is as an executive director of the enterprise I run, which differs from independent non-executive oversight elsewhere. I would complete the remaining learning and have the outside role assessed alongside my executive seat before accepting it. I could join strategy, investment or operating-risk discussions alongside established financial, legal and governance skills, without claiming readiness to chair a statutory committee. The chair should explain which recurring capacity or readiness assumption is difficult for directors to challenge and what assurance management supplies. I could be useful where the board is willing to accept a different commercial proposition when the original one depends on invisible availability or unexamined reuse. Accountable management would retain responsibility for the service, the people deployed and the promises made to customers.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Tarneshi Exhibition Logistics
Board operating-capacity reviews through the chief executive
April 2015–March 2020
Presented operating commitments and the recovery of the three overlapping assignments as COO.
Judgement in practice
Separate approvals concealed one concurrent demand on the same crews
The three assignments needed nine crew teams while six were available. I would ask a board how management examines overlapping commitments before approval and what authority can change a commercially attractive combination. The ₹42 lakh recovery and revised work windows addressed the immediate problem, but did not prove the original promise was reasonable. Directors need to understand whether recovery has become a recurring way to deliver the plan. They should not dispatch partner crews themselves. My contribution would be to ask for the shared capacity picture, the alternatives considered and the effect of the decision on customers and colleagues. Keeping my own approval in the account helps distinguish learning from a story that celebrates exceptional effort while leaving the cause of that effort untouched.
A repeated-use asset needed a repeated-use condition
The selected 120 crates supported 216 recorded movements over eighteen months, including 96 movements beyond first use. I would ask directors what that account establishes and what it does not. It shows activity in a defined programme, not universal suitability, maximum useful life or a measured environmental result. The board should understand how condition, fit and professional approvals remain part of future use. Purchasing reusable equipment is an investment decision; keeping the next assignment suitable is a continuing operating responsibility. I could help separate the two without taking specialist judgement from clients or qualified colleagues. The same discipline applies to other service assets whose count can look impressive while the conditions under which they provide value remain less visible in the investment paper.
My first year on a board
I would follow one significant service commitment from commercial discussion through the people, equipment and preparation it requires. Through the chair’s agreed process, I would meet commercial, operations, finance and specialist owners to understand where an overlapping demand or unsuitable use can change the decision. I would examine a recovered assignment alongside a routine one, because exceptional effort can hide a weakness in how promises are accepted. Twenty-four proposed annual days must cover preparation, learning, meetings and exceptional demands while respecting my existing executive directorship. I would ask the chair whether my questions improve oversight or draw me back into an operating role. At the first-year review, I would want a material growth discussion to make concurrent capacity, readiness cost and approval boundaries clearer. I would also ask whether the board received evidence after the decision about the service actually delivered rather than only the business originally sold.
Conflicts and their management
My current executive and director roles provide access to customer schedules, private rates, partner capacity, packing methods and planned investments. I would disclose those employer and customer relationships, my 0.06% interest within the employee vehicle, and relevant investor, venue, partner and adviser connections before receiving another company’s protected material. The prospective company must assess eligibility and independence in its own circumstances, and my employer must consent to a realistic outside commitment. I would not use a customer’s exhibition schedule or private transport terms to give another enterprise a commercial advantage. An isolated conflict may permit recusal, but recurring exclusion from the core service agenda could make a seat unsuitable. Capacity must also allow for a significant recovery or investment decision in the company I lead. I would decline an appointment expecting venue access, customer assignments or professional packing approvals through my personal involvement.
My independence statement
My executive directorship, employer relationship and 0.06% interest within the employee vehicle require disclosure alongside investor, customer, venue, partner and adviser connections. Independence for another appointment needs a specific assessment.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Preparation for any proposed outside role and any registration relevant to that appointment remain to be completed. My existing executive directorship is not presented as an assessment pass or exemption.
- Developing a non-executive perspective distinct from my current CEO and executive-director role
- Learning to examine operating obligations through assurance without directing daily deployment