Roshni Darvazeri · Chief Technology Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technology or risk committee after induction where industrial development experience fits the remit |
I am interested in one first non-executive appointment where product development and qualification choices materially affect the business. A technology or risk committee could fit after induction, but I am not offering to chair a specialist audit or product-safety committee without the appropriate experience. The board should have complementary financial, legal, commercial and technical knowledge. My fictional databank registration dates from September 2026, with assessment preparation and other applicable requirements still ahead. Twenty annual days depends on employer consent and the actual calendar. I would value a chair who expects a programme sponsor to explain the strongest alternative and the evidence that would change the recommendation. My role would be to question the enterprise commitment collectively, not to approve a formula, select kiln conditions or become a second manager of another company's engineering team. The fit should be judged on that bounded contribution and the preparation needed to make it useful.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Technology portfolio and application proposals through the CEO; no board or committee membership
January 2023 – Present
I present selected development choices and follow-up through CEO Farhad Qezvani. I hold no statutory directorship. Quality head Mala Norsheli retains acceptance authority independently of my development remit.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Within this fictional career I registered with the IICA independent directors databank in September 2026. I have not passed its proficiency assessment and do not claim an exemption. The applicable assessment and continuing requirements remain part of my preparation before an appointment is pursued.
I could help an industrial board examine the boundary of a technical claim and the opportunity cost of the development work behind it. My experience includes pilots that could not honestly be combined into an improvement percentage, material evidence that answered different questions and programmes whose next stage no longer deserved the capacity required. I would ask management what application the evidence supports, which authority accepts the result and what remains outside the claim. The board should not become a laboratory review panel. My contribution would be strongest when it helps directors understand the enterprise commitment without taking over the specialist decision. I would need to learn the proposed company's products and obligations before applying an analogy from ceramics. Financial, legal and commercial colleagues would bring essential perspectives. A useful discussion should retain the cost, uncertainty and alternatives in a form the whole board can assess, rather than reward the person who supplies the most technical detail.
The slurry pilot had seven failures among twenty-four assemblies; a revised dry-application group had two among twenty-four. The conditions differed, so I did not support a matched improvement claim. After a one-crore-twenty-lakh-rupee examination programme, we pursued the narrower dry route through the qualified process and kept slurry introduction outside it. In a board role I would ask whether the proposed comparison represents the same application and what commercial commitment depends on it. The indicative slurry enquiries were not firm orders or recognised revenue, which also mattered to the decision account. Directors should understand those distinctions without deciding individual release criteria. My experience can help identify the assumption hidden inside an attractive performance statement, while qualified technical owners remain responsible for the examination and acceptance that support the actual product.
We closed a decorative variant after one crore seventy lakh rupees had been spent and declined a proposed two crore sixty lakh rupees next stage. Fourteen engineers moved to industrial wear development and test-method work, nine and five respectively. As a director I would ask how management compared the next commitment with the work it would displace, and how the people and continuing obligations were handled. I would not call an unapproved stage a realised saving or infer that the original investigation had always been mistaken. The board needs an accurate account of what changed. A technical leader can contribute to that discussion by making the opportunity cost concrete, while recognising that commercial, financial and organisational colleagues may see important consequences beyond the development team's immediate view.
I would begin with the company's product obligations, ownership and the decisions its board makes about technical investment. Through the chair's induction arrangements I would meet development, quality, operations, finance and commercial leaders to understand how a proposed claim becomes an approved commitment. I would read a development paper alongside its follow-up, including an example in which management narrowed or stopped the programme. Site visits should help me understand the process without creating a parallel instruction route for engineers. I would prepare on financial reporting and collective duties so that a materials background did not limit my contribution to technical topics. The chair's feedback would help me judge whether I was making the assumption clearer or drawing directors into a specialist detail better handled elsewhere. I would also learn how the board hears disagreement, because the strongest challenge to a preferred programme may come from a colleague whose responsibility is different from the sponsor's.
Kezrali's industrial customers, material suppliers, testing partners, working founders, employee trust and regional investor may have connections with a prospective company. I would disclose relevant interests and examine those relationships before receiving confidential development papers. My employment creates obligations even without a statutory board seat. Formulations, process conditions, supplier histories and unpublished test results should not move between companies through my external role. An anonymised explanation of judgement can be useful without transferring protected technical knowledge. If overlap prevented meaningful participation in the prospective board's central decisions, repeatedly stepping out might not make the appointment workable. Employer consent and time require early examination as well. Twenty annual days is provisional and must be tested against preparation, meetings, committee demands and exceptional events alongside the CTO role. I would want the chair to understand those limits before treating a shared interest in industrial materials as sufficient evidence of a responsible fit.
My employment, interests and commercial relationships would require review against applicable Companies Act independence conditions, SEBI LODR requirements where relevant, committee duties and directorship limits. I hold no current statutory directorship. Databank registration is not evidence of independence or suitability for a particular company, and I would seek qualified advice about the conditions of the proposed role.