My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine whether a growth proposal describes the organisation it would require, rather than only the revenue it might produce. My experience covers renewal assumptions, acquired capability and the economics of specialised service work. Those are useful starting points for questions about commitments, but they do not replace directors with deeper sector, legal or financial expertise. I have prepared recommendations for my employer's board without serving on it. An initial appointment would therefore require deliberate learning about collective responsibility and the company's own operating model. I would seek to clarify the assumption that most affects a decision and the evidence management needs to support it. The contribution should make the board's judgement more informed without creating a parallel strategy department. I would also ask how earlier investment decisions are revisited, because a well-presented approval paper is only one part of responsible oversight when the actual conditions later change.
Judgement in practice
01A lower planning number can support a more precise commitment
The renewal review changed the central revenue case from ₹171 crore to ₹157 crore and separated twenty-three proposed positions from recruitment needed for existing obligations. It did not prove that the higher revenue could never arrive. It showed that some commitments depended on decisions clients had not yet made. On a board, I would ask whether management has matched the firmness of its expenditure to the evidence behind its revenue assumptions. I would also ask what service risk arises if recruitment waits and several renewals arrive together. A cautious-looking plan can still be poorly designed if it ignores that consequence. The board should understand the alternatives and agree which material assumptions warrant a return discussion. It should not quietly convert a conditional forecast into a promise or require every routine staffing decision to come back for approval. The useful oversight question concerns the balance of commitment and readiness.
02A purchase should be judged on capability that can continue
The acquisition case depended on specialist knowledge, but only twenty-four of forty-two relevant specialists had agreed transfer terms at the decision date. I recommended declining after the operating team could not support the proposed timetable using that available capability. As a director, I would ask what part of the strategic rationale remains if unresolved people or client arrangements do not materialise. The answer should change the valuation or recommendation when it is material, rather than become a generic integration risk. I would also require an honest comparison with internal development, which may be slower and can fail for its own reasons. Declining a deal after due-diligence expense is not evidence that the expense was wasted or that the seller lacks value. The board's responsibility is to assess the proposition actually available, with qualified advice, rather than the more attractive one management hopes to negotiate after committing.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the service promises that create the company's revenue and the skills needed to keep them. An induction agreed with the chair and chief executive would include delivery, finance, people and client leaders, supported by a small number of completed investment decisions. I would read existing papers before proposing new templates or metrics. In the first year, I would aim to improve the board's discussion of one significant strategic assumption, including how management would recognise that it had changed. I would ask the chair for feedback if my questions became operating instructions or excessive requests for analysis. Twenty-two days a year is a proposed allowance for meetings, preparation and induction, not an unconditional capacity statement. Employer consent and the actual calendar would need agreement. I would expect exceptional transaction work to be discussed separately, with an honest decision about whether I could contribute the time required.
Conflicts and their management
Our administration business serves advisory organisations and works with technology, data and professional-service suppliers. A prospective board company may have connections to those relationships even if it describes itself as a different type of business. I would disclose relevant links through the nomination process and obtain appropriate advice before confidential transaction information is shared. I would not bring client records, acquisition findings or supplier terms from my employer into another boardroom. A specific conflict might be handled through exclusion and documented procedures, but pervasive conflicts could prevent a useful appointment. I would also decline a role whose real purpose was access to potential acquisition candidates or commercial introductions. Independence and committee composition would need company-specific assessment. My fictional IICA registration does not complete the unfinished proficiency preparation or establish eligibility for every seat. Changes in employment, personal interests or commercial relationships would prompt updated disclosure rather than reliance on an old declaration.
My independence statement
I would disclose employment and all relevant client, supplier and personal financial connections. No personal equity in my employer and no current directorships do not by themselves establish independence.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy or risk committee whose remit fits service-business investment and capability questions |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Investment administration outside competing relationships · Knowledge-intensive business services · Specialist outsourced operations
- Company type
- Unlisted service company with an experienced chair and established executive responsibilities
- Company stage
- Considering acquisition or a change in the complexity of its client portfolio
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first board seat at an unlisted service company facing a meaningful choice about acquisition, client complexity or the capabilities needed for growth. It should have an experienced chair who welcomes challenge and an executive team accountable for implementation. I would initially join an appropriate committee as a member, not offer immediate chair readiness. The nomination discussion should explain which perspective is missing from the board and how my experience could contribute alongside the skills already present. I have no current directorships and would address outstanding preparation before a relevant appointment. The company should not expect me to provide transaction advice outside the board's agreed arrangements. My interest is in collective judgement about the business that a strategy would create, with enough attention to the practical consequences that the decision remains useful after the presentation ends.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Fictionally registered with the IICA Independent Directors' Databank in July 2026; proficiency self-assessment remains incomplete, with no exemption asserted.
- Internal study of collective director responsibility and delegated executive authority
- Working sessions with the company secretary on evidence in investment papers
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Dhurveni Investment Services
Board strategy and corporate-development reviews
April 2021–present
Present planning and investment recommendations as CSO; no director appointment or board-committee membership.