My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine what a piece of evidence permits the company to conclude or do. A catalogue match may justify a connection without justifying substitution. A stronger overall search result may conceal a material regression for one kind of request. A respondent preference may inform a service without estimating demand across every customer. My contribution would be to make those transitions visible and ask whether the proposed commitment is proportionate to what is known. I would also bring the experience of having supported an overconfident merge rule myself. That helps me discuss correction without assuming that a colleague's original proposal was careless. I have not served as a director, and I would need to learn how to make these questions useful within collective oversight. Experienced financial, legal and operating colleagues should retain their own contribution; analytical confidence is not a substitute for their expertise.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology or data committee where constituted, after induction and eligibility review · Risk committee where evidence quality is relevant to its remit and complementary expertise is present |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 21 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Specialist consumer retail · Knowledge and discovery services · Businesses using customer research for material decisions
- Company type
- A consumer or knowledge-service company with experienced financial, operating and governance directors
- Company stage
- Reviewing a material data-enabled customer proposition or evidence-led investment
The seat I am pursuing
I am seeking a first non-executive discussion where customer evidence and the meaning of data decisions would add to an already capable board. A specialist retailer or knowledge-service business could fit, but the particular mandate matters more than a familiar sector label. I would be interested in a suitable technology or risk committee after induction and eligibility review, without claiming readiness to chair it. I hold no statutory seats, have not registered with the IICA databank and do not present an assessment or exemption status as complete. Preparation and the proposed company's requirements would need to be resolved before appointment. The best fit would value both a clear challenge to an overextended inference and a practical route for proceeding when evidence is sufficient. I want to develop judgement in collective oversight, not collect a title or become an informal extension of the company's analytical team.
Judgement in practice
01A match that would have changed the product choice
The 2023 review examined 1,204 records in 217 proposed merge groups. It retained 364 distinct editions or translations and classified 840 source records as duplicates suitable for controlled consolidation. I had initially supported the broad rule, then recommended a linked presentation after editorial review showed what it could erase. In a board discussion I would ask which customer or commercial action a data classification authorises, and whether the evidence is strong enough for that action. The ₹32 lakh review cost and continuing stewardship work belong in the account. I would not describe the changed treatment as measured sales growth or a proven count of errors prevented. The governance question is whether management can explain, review and assign ownership to consequential automated decisions. Directors need not inspect every publication to assess whether the organisation has matched the strength of its action to the evidence behind it.
02An encouraging survey that could not speak for silent invitees
The subscription study received 450 completions from 900 adult recent-purchaser invitations. Among respondents 279 preferred the offer, or 62%. I challenged the move from that finding to an adoption estimate for the wider customer base. A ₹21 lakh study had supplied useful motives and preferences, but the ₹84 lakh launch proposal needed a different account of population coverage and purchase behaviour. Management held the broad proposal while considering a narrower follow-up. As a director I would ask where the forecast changes from observation to assumption and who owns the resulting risk. I would retain the commercial team's reasonable view that volunteers might resemble early adopters, without presenting that hypothesis as established audience size. The held proposal is not cash saved, and the missing responses are not evidence of either enthusiasm or rejection. A board can still decide under uncertainty when that uncertainty is stated honestly.
My first year on a board
My first year would begin with the chair's induction plan and a careful understanding of the company's customers, economics and principal obligations. I would read recent papers in which research or a data classification influenced a material decision, then discuss the process with management through agreed channels. I would want to learn how the business defines evidence quality, who can accept a limitation and how outcomes are reviewed after approval. I would avoid arriving with a bookseller's catalogue model as a universal answer. A few well-prepared questions should help colleagues distinguish a useful observation from an unsupported conclusion, while leaving execution with management. I would also seek feedback on my contribution as a new director, including when a question had become too operational or repeated work already done by a committee. At the annual review I would identify the sector and governance learning needed to make the second year more useful.
Conflicts and their management
Nerzavi's publishers, suppliers, technology providers and research relationships could intersect with another company's interests. I would disclose relevant connections before receiving confidential papers, obtain necessary employer consent and seek advice on whether a proposed role could be performed properly. A recusal arrangement would need to be practical rather than a way to accept a seat from which important discussions continually excluded me. I would not bring protected customer records, research responses or commercial catalogue terms into another boardroom. The twenty-one-day allowance would be tested against meetings, preparation, travel and unexpected work alongside my existing responsibilities. I would decline an appointment if the conflict or capacity assessment did not support it. Those checks should remain current as relationships and duties change, rather than be treated as a single form completed when an interesting opportunity first appears.
My independence statement
Employment and commercial relationships require assessment against the proposed company's circumstances. No personal holding in Nerzavi does not establish independence. Applicable Companies Act conditions, SEBI LODR where relevant, committee requirements and directorship limits should be reviewed with appropriate professional advice.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Nerzavi Book Rooms
Board discussions of catalogue investment and customer-research evidence
January 2023–Present
Executive presenter through the CEO; no board vote, statutory appointment or committee membership.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Farhan has not completed IICA independent directors databank registration. Assessment preparation and any applicable requirements remain to be addressed; no exemption or completed assessment is asserted.
- Executive explanations of catalogue and research decisions to Nerzavi directors from January 2023
- Developing the distinction between analytical advice and collective board oversight
- IICA registration remains planned, with assessment preparation still ahead