Leela Dervaqshi · Chief Operating Officer · India
I would help directors ask whether the operating commitment describes a complete service and the resources the company has authority to use. A machine-stage rate can overstate delivered capacity, a correct total can conceal the wrong item mix, and customer property can appear in a stock pool without being available for another promise. My experience is in making those conditions visible before acceptance. On a board I would bring that perspective alongside financial, legal, quality and sector expertise. I have not served as a director and would need induction into the receiving company's responsibilities. I would not use the seat to run the production plan or overrule qualified acceptance decisions. The intended contribution is a clearer collective assessment of management's recommendation, including the cost of an alternative and the evidence needed before the company relies on an expanded capability. An attractive opportunity should remain open to challenge when its operating basis is incomplete.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Operations and service-risk committee where constituted · Capital-investment committee with qualified sector support |
I would consider a first non-executive seat at an institutional or industrial support-service company that needs thoughtful challenge on capacity, customer custody and capital readiness. An experienced chair and colleagues with complementary expertise would be important while I develop director experience. I would seek a member contribution rather than claim immediate readiness to chair a committee. My databank preparation is unfinished and I have no current statutory appointment; those facts should be explicit in any nomination discussion. The proposed company should explain which decisions my experience could improve and what further learning it expects. A suitable seat would let me ask whether the promised service can be completed under its actual conditions while respecting management and professional authority. I would decline an arrangement whose conflicts or workload prevented that contribution, or whose main purpose was to obtain operating advice without the responsibilities of a properly constituted board role.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board operations and capital-investment reviews
April 2021–present
Invited COO presenter on service capacity, capital proposals and customer-stock commitments; not a director or committee member.
The 24-tonne washer figure did not represent the 12 tonnes finishing could support for the defined mix and daily conditions. In a board discussion I would ask how management has established the constraining stage and whether the figures use comparable bases. Directors should understand why the proposed investment addresses that constraint and what evidence will show it works. They should also see the consequence of waiting, including the possibility of losing the customer opportunity. I would not claim that the lowest observed number automatically establishes capacity under every future mix. Qualified operating and technical colleagues need to explain their method and contingencies. The board's role is to challenge the recommendation and its conditions, not to substitute a director's preferred machine or process for the responsible team's assessment.
The stock proposal counted 12,000 pieces although 4,500 were customer-owned under segregated terms. A board should ask whether an asset described as available can actually support the proposed use. Location and condition are not enough when ownership or contractual restrictions differ. I would expect management to explain those conditions with appropriate legal and financial support, and to show the cost of obtaining additional resources if needed. The purchase of 3,000 pieces was a real commitment that still required sourcing and acceptance; it was not immediate completed capacity. Directors should understand the decision if the opportunity is lost during the delay. I would apply the question about permitted use to the receiving company's own arrangements, rather than assume every service business should use the same stock model as my employer.
I would begin by learning how the proposed company defines service completion, acceptance authority and customer-asset responsibility. With the chair, I would arrange site and management discussions that connect a sample order with the board account of capacity and investment. I would review previous changes in assumptions before proposing new measures. A first contribution might be to clarify one recurring commitment or capital condition that directors currently find difficult to examine. Twenty-five days is a provisional annual allowance covering meetings, preparation, induction and travel, subject to employer consent and the actual calendar. Exceptional investment or service issues could require more. I would ask experienced directors for feedback on whether my questions help oversight or pull the board into operating instructions. Learning the receiving business matters because a familiar-looking process can have different responsibilities, contracts and constraints from the one I currently lead.
My direct 0.3% holding, employment and relationships through employee shareholders, the investment partnership, customers and suppliers would be disclosed before I received confidential material for a proposed board. The company would need an appointment-specific independence and committee-eligibility review supported by suitable advice. I would not transfer customer terms, process records or operating forecasts from Pelquvi into another organisation's discussion. A recurring conflict around the company's main service or investment decisions could make the role unsuitable even if an isolated matter could be managed. I would also clarify that the appointment does not provide access to customer-owned assets or confidential supplier arrangements. Time and employer consent require the same practical attention as financial interests. A board role should allow informed participation in the matters for which I was recruited, not depend on repeated absences from the central discussion or an informal consultancy relationship outside the agreed role.
My employment, 0.3% direct holding and relationships through employee owners, customers and suppliers require review for any external appointment. Operational experience does not establish independence or eligibility for a particular committee.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Registration for the IICA Independent Directors' Databank is still ahead of me. Preparation and the requirements applicable to an actual appointment need to be completed as relevant; I am not claiming an exemption.