Chief Strategy Officer / India
A larger proposition required a different account
- Strategy colleagues
- 20
- Three heads; enterprise headcount 380
- Annual strategy function expense
- ₹4.3 crore
- No independent property-capital approval
- Appraisal, portfolio and strategy
- 33 years
- Continuous progression from June 1993
Decisions & consequences
01Reopening the expansion I had supported from room occupancy alone
In 2018 I supported a ₹4.6 crore proposed expansion after a review showed eighty of one hundred rooms occupied at a selected site. The count appeared to support repeating the existing mix. Sameer Qevzalthi asked us to show the occupied categories and their stated rents before treating that number as evidence for the investment recommendation. His challenge exposed the assumption I had allowed the headline to carry.
The site had sixty small rooms and forty large rooms. All sixty small rooms were occupied at a stated ₹5,000 per month, while twenty of the forty large rooms were occupied at ₹15,000. The defined monthly room-rent account was therefore ₹3 lakh plus ₹3 lakh, or ₹6 lakh. Full occupancy at those prices would produce ₹3 lakh plus ₹6 lakh, or ₹9 lakh. Eighty per cent of rooms represented about 66.7 per cent of that stated rent account. It was not an area-utilisation, collection or profitability measure.
The development sponsor wanted to preserve the proposed mix, arguing that the larger rooms could fill over time and that redesign would delay the programme. That remained possible; the snapshot did not prove permanent absence of demand. I nevertheless withdrew my reliance on the room count and supported a ₹37 lakh, nine-week review of the expansion assumptions. Qualified property, commercial and finance owners retained the actual design, pricing and investment decisions. The ₹4.6 crore remained a proposal rather than expenditure already committed.
We gave up the speed of repeating a familiar layout from a reassuring aggregate. The bounded outcome was a reopened recommendation and a clearer demand question for the unoccupied category, not a claimed revenue improvement or avoided loss. I had to acknowledge that the underlying count was accurate while my interpretation was too broad. The case changed my strategy practice: a useful indicator should remain attached to the unit it measures, and an expansion argument should explain which part of the existing business it is actually proposing to repeat.
Choosing a management pilot after comparing the obligations in two growth models
In 2023 a property partner proposed a five-site master-lease route. The planning account assumed ₹6.5 crore annual room-hire revenue, ₹4.2 crore property rent and ₹1.6 crore specified direct operating expense. That left ₹0.7 crore before central costs, financing, tax and other excluded items. A separate management-service model assumed ₹1.4 crore annual fees and ₹0.9 crore direct service expense, leaving ₹0.5 crore on its stated basis. These were projections for different obligations, not two quotations for identical work.
The growth sponsor preferred the master lease because the company would control more of the customer proposition and report the larger revenue account. Sameer questioned whether we should accept fixed property rent while entering unfamiliar sites. Anita wanted the comparison to preserve both arguments rather than allow either revenue scale or lower exposure to settle the decision alone. I recommended examining a smaller management pilot while qualified colleagues completed the contractual and financial assessment.
We used ₹46 lakh and twelve weeks for the option review and preparation. The approved next step was a two-site management pilot with its own scope and evaluation. We did not multiply the five-site projection into an achieved result or claim the pilot had established the model’s long-term economics. The management route still required capable delivery, clear responsibilities and a workable relationship with the property owner. Removing one type of obligation did not remove all commercial risk.
The choice gave up some direct control and the prospect of the larger room-hire revenue account in exchange for a more bounded way to learn. The result at that point was the selected pilot route, not a reported financial return. I wanted the board to see which business the company was choosing to perform: owning the rent obligation and customer offer under a master lease, or supplying a defined management service under another arrangement. Location count alone would have made both paths look like the same growth strategy.
Keeping storage enquiries separate from an unprepared fulfilment business
In 2025 we examined thirty enquiries associated with a proposed business-customer expansion. Eighteen concerned ordinary storage rooms and agreed handling. Twelve sought daily order dispatch. The commercial presentation had grouped them together as evidence for a larger business offer, but the additional activity changed what the enterprise would have to do. Supplying space did not by itself establish a capability to perform a continuing dispatch service.
The expansion sponsor wanted to respond quickly while customer interest was visible. Her concern was reasonable: asking for a fully developed capability before testing any demand could leave a useful adjacency unexplored. Sameer nevertheless needed the proposed activity, operating ownership and customer commitment defined before his team could be expected to deliver it. I supported retaining the enquiry evidence while declining to treat all thirty as demand for the existing service or as approval to launch the wider one.
A ₹29 lakh, ten-week review examined the boundary and revised the commercial account. We kept the storage offer within its established scope and did not launch order fulfilment on the strength of those enquiries. The twelve unmet requests remained a possible future question, not a dismissed market or a group of lost orders we claimed to have measured. Qualified operating and contractual owners retained decisions about any later service development. The review itself did not certify capability or establish a profitable route.
We gave up the immediate appearance of a broader offer and the convenience of presenting every enquiry as the same kind of opportunity. The bounded outcome was a clearer choice about what the company would promise now and what still needed development. The case made adjacency more concrete for the strategy team. A new service can begin inside familiar premises and still require a different business to support it. I want that change in responsibility visible before the company uses the familiarity of the setting to make the expansion appear easier than it is.