My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what the company has promised its customers and whether it can support that promise over time. In specialist software, a small interface change can imply a new responsibility, and a commercial package can encourage a pattern of use that management did not intend. My experience is in making those relationships visible before commitments become difficult to reverse. I would ask how product evidence reaches the board, which assumptions are being tested and who can challenge a large opportunity when it exceeds the company's competence. I would not try to run product reviews from the boardroom. Management should own research, design and delivery, while directors judge strategy, resources and the risks attached to the proposition. I have no previous directorship and would need induction into the company's full model. My contribution would be strongest alongside colleagues with complementary financial, legal and sector knowledge.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the company's sources of revenue, customer concentration, implementation obligations and support economics. With the chair's agreement, I would read a small selection of won and declined proposals alongside the product plan, then ask management how those commitments are reflected in resourcing. I would meet finance, commercial, product and engineering leaders to learn where their views differ and how disagreement is resolved. I would also study the committee terms and reporting calendar before proposing new material. During the first year, I would focus on the quality of decisions about portfolio expansion and continuing obligations rather than the number of features delivered. I would seek feedback from the chair on whether my questions help the whole board. The discipline for me would be to remain at the level of oversight: asking management to demonstrate a sound process without becoming its informal product approver or creating a second reporting line for its teams.
Conflicts and their management
Sarnovel's institutional clients, implementation relationships and software suppliers could create conflicts with a prospective appointment. I would disclose those connections, any relevant financial interests and the obligations of my employment before substantive discussions. I would not share client research, pricing proposals or a confidential roadmap to help another company compete. Employer consent would be necessary, and independence would require assessment for the proposed entity rather than a general declaration from me. I would consider applicable committee and directorship limits even though I currently hold no seats. If recurring conflicts would exclude me from the board's central commercial decisions, I would regard that as a question of suitability rather than assume repeated recusal solved it. My twenty-day provisional allowance includes preparation and travel; the actual calendar, induction and potential exceptional work would need to fit alongside my executive responsibilities. I would rather decline an appointment than offer attendance without sufficient attention.
My independence statement
I would disclose my employment, interests and business relationships for the proposed company's assessment of independence under section 149(6) and other applicable requirements. SEBI LODR requirements would be considered where relevant. My executive position does not establish independence, and any directorship or committee limits must be checked against the particular appointment.
Judgement in practice
01Accepting a less impressive product demonstration
The renewal control looked decisive in a demonstration but led eleven of twenty-four research participants to believe an instruction had reached a bank. I supported a more explicit preparation workflow even though it made the product appear less complete. As a director, I would ask whether management's evidence examines customer interpretation as well as task completion. I would also ask whether the commercial presentation makes the same promise as the product and contract. The board should not choose button labels, but it should understand when the company's proposition depends on an assumption that users do not share. A small research sample does not quantify every possible consequence. It can nevertheless reveal a misunderstanding serious enough to require a management response before broader release, particularly when the service sits close to consequential financial work.
02Giving up a contract outside our product competence
I recommended declining a potential three-year ₹2.2 crore contract for an in-house valuation engine because we lacked the specialist capability to produce and maintain the proposed result. We offered a narrower paid discovery around an approved external source; the prospect chose another supplier. I would bring that experience to a board discussion about adjacent growth. Directors should understand whether an opportunity extends an existing capability or creates a new business with different obligations. A development estimate and a willing buyer do not answer that question. I would ask management to show the capability gap, the continuing cost and the conditions under which the board should reconsider. The lost opportunity should remain visible in the decision record, so restraint is assessed alongside its commercial consequence rather than presented as costless virtue.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Product or technology committee where the board has established one · Risk committee where customer-workflow experience fits the remit and eligibility requirements |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Sarnovel Treasury Software
Board discussions on product scope, packaging and portfolio commitments
2022–present
Invited executive presentations on product decisions and their continuing obligations; no director or committee-member appointment.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Institutional business software · Financial-service support businesses · Specialist operational software
- Company type
- An established specialist company with accountable management and a board strengthening product oversight
- Company stage
- Broadening a focused product portfolio without losing control of service obligations
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider one first non-executive appointment at a specialist business-software or financial-service support company that is expanding beyond its original product. The board should be seeking judgement about the proposition, customer use and continuing obligations, with experienced management able to act on its decisions. For a first appointment, I would join an appropriate committee and learn its work before considering any chair responsibility. A product, technology or appropriately constituted risk committee could be a useful starting point where the remit fits my experience and the appointment requirements are satisfied. I would value a company whose board is willing to discuss opportunities it has declined as well as contracts it has won. The role should offer a proper induction and room to develop a broader director's perspective. I would not accept an expectation that my seat provides access to Sarnovel's clients or turns our product team into an informal resource for another business.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Registered with the IICA independent directors databank in August 2026. My proficiency preparation remains in progress; I have neither a passing result nor an exemption to present. Registration is one part of preparation, not evidence of appointment eligibility on its own.
- Preparing for the applicable proficiency assessment following August 2026 registration
- Studying directors' duties and the difference between product management and board oversight
- Broadening understanding of financial reporting and committee responsibilities before a first appointment