Question the assumption inside the product promise
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the assumptions a product makes when it recommends an action to a user. An attractive demonstration can conceal a relaxed constraint or a change of purpose between screen and output. My experience would support questions about how management tests those assumptions, who retains the final judgement and what the investment case claims the product can achieve. I would not use a board seat to choose interface controls or direct an engineering team. The value should lie in collective scrutiny of the commercial proposition and the evidence behind it. I would need to learn the receiving company's customers, finances and obligations before applying the examples I know. My own mistaken approvals are useful reminders that a confident product account should remain open to challenge, including when the correction costs time and reduces the scope of a feature.
Judgement in practice
01
A useful recommendation must preserve the user's stated conditions
Nine of thirty-six reviewed suggestions ignored a locked one-way orientation. Six were repaired and three withheld rather than presented as usable results. The correction cost ₹18 lakh and delayed the release five weeks. At board level I would ask whether management's claimed product benefit depends on relaxing a condition the customer reasonably believes remains in force. Directors should understand the supported scope and the consequence when the system cannot satisfy it. They do not need to prescribe the layout algorithm. The useful oversight question is whether the product's promise, the evidence and the investment request describe the same capability. I would also keep the cost and incomplete work visible rather than comparing a valid result with an invalid shortcut to claim a financial or material benefit.
02
A convenient output can change the decision it appears to support
The print-preparation review found that twenty-nine of eighty participants missed a scale change from a 100 mm reference to 97 mm. I had approved the convenience preset. We funded ₹31 lakh of redesign to distinguish illustrative output from preparation intended to retain scale. For a board, I would ask how management follows a product claim into the customer's next task and identifies assumptions that can change there. A successful export does not establish physical suitability. The company should be clear about its supported behaviour and the checks that remain with users, without treating a disclaimer as a substitute for a better product decision. The reviewed task was bounded evidence; it did not prove a universal error rate or certify all future outputs.
My first year on a board
My induction would begin with the enterprise's business model and the decisions its products influence. Through a plan agreed with the chair, I would hear from finance, product, engineering, operations and customer-facing leaders and review selected past investment choices. I would want to see how the board currently evaluates assumptions and learns when a feature or programme produces a different result from the original case. I would initially listen more than propose new product reporting. Twenty-two days is a provisional annual allowance for induction, preparation, meetings and travel, subject to employer consent and the actual calendar. Significant product issues or transactions could need additional time. Feedback from the chair and experienced directors would help me judge whether my questions improve collective oversight and whether I am developing beyond the research and design concerns most familiar from my executive role.
Conflicts and their management
I would disclose relevant relationships through Selquvi's employee trust, founding family, customers and software partners before receiving confidential board material. The proposed company should commission qualified assessment of the actual appointment and applicable independence or committee requirements. My trust-beneficiary position needs consideration even if it does not confer direct control. I would also ask whether recurring conflicts would prevent me from contributing to the product questions for which the board was recruiting. Confidential patterns, customer production details and unpublished development plans would not become material I could use in another company's deliberations. Employer agreement and practical capacity would need to support the role. Disclosure would continue as relationships changed. I would decline an arrangement that relied on informal access to my employer's expertise or customers instead of a meaningful contribution to the receiving board's collective work.
My independence statement
My employment, trust-beneficiary interest and relationships with design customers, partners and the founding family would require a specific appointment review. Product leadership does not establish independence or eligibility.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Selquvi Pattern Software
Board product-strategy and development-investment discussions
April 2022–present
Invited CPO presenter on product priorities, scope and research evidence; not a director or committee member.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
My formal board preparation remains incomplete and I have not registered in the databank. Applicable requirements would need to be established and completed before appointment; no exemption is claimed.
Learning how directors connect product evidence with investment decisions through discussions with the company secretary
Building financial and governance understanding beyond design and product practice