A minority repair stake is not an outsourced operating department

The owned-centre proposal had an attractive simplicity. Six repair sites would sit within the retailer's operating structure, with people employed to work under its decisions. Customers would see a service connected to the business that sold the luggage, and management would have a direct route for setting priorities. Our alternative was less simple. It relied on a new venture with two service partners whose competence we wanted and whose interests would not always be identical to ours. The strategic choice was not between building capability and avoiding responsibility. It was between different ways of acquiring capability and carrying responsibility.

In 2021, the estimate for six wholly owned centres was ₹8.2 crore. We instead invested ₹2.45 crore for 35% of Velqeri Service Partners, whose total initial capital was ₹7 crore. The other two partners held 40% and 25%. Those numbers describe the ownership structure, but they do not by themselves explain every decision right or operating commitment. The actual arrangements needed appropriate professional work. I wanted the investment paper to describe the influence we would have, the expertise the partners brought and the matters on which agreement would remain necessary.

## Name the control the lower investment does not buy

The operations team's preference for owned centres deserved a serious hearing. A retailer can be held accountable by customers for a service experience even when the work is performed through another business. Direct employment and a wholly owned structure can make some operating choices easier to coordinate. My recommendation for partnership needed to answer that concern rather than dismiss it as a preference for control. The service partners' existing knowledge was valuable, but access to knowledge did not remove the need to explain how the relationship would work when priorities diverged.

Subtracting ₹2.45 crore from ₹8.2 crore would not produce a defensible saving. The alternative changed the footprint, ownership and obligations. One route proposed six centres under our ownership; the other purchased a minority interest in a separate venture with its own capabilities and commitments. A smaller investment can be appropriate because it buys a different undertaking. It becomes misleading when the presentation implies that the same result has been obtained for less money without stating what changed. I wanted the board to see the trade rather than only the smaller number.

The business also needed to understand dependence after the investment. A shareholding does not eliminate reliance on partner competence or make every capacity constraint an internal instruction away from resolution. Some problems require discussion, formal decisions or a change in the commercial arrangement. The proposal therefore needed more than an optimistic description of cooperation. It needed a practical way to recognise a disagreement, bring the right owners together and resolve it without making an individual customer carry the uncertainty for longer than necessary.

I would have specified that escalation more fully before the venture began. At the proposal stage, colleagues can agree that everyone values service quality while still imagining different answers to a difficult case. The owned-centre supporters saw that risk clearly. Their concern improved the partnership recommendation even though the selected structure differed from their preference. A useful strategy process should preserve such contributions. Winning the choice does not mean the other argument has stopped containing information the chosen route needs.

## Read service activity and financial performance together

Velqeri had fifty-four employees by October 2026. They were separate from Qarvelli's 420, and combining the numbers would misstate the retailer's workforce. The venture reported ₹6.8 crore revenue and a ₹42 lakh operating loss for the year ending March 2026. A reviewed population of 1,280 jobs contained 1,020 assessed as repairable and 260 declined. These facts belong in the same account, but they answer different questions. Activity and technical assessment do not establish profitability, and an operating loss does not by itself show that the service has no value.

The repairable count was not a promise about every bag a customer might bring. Qualified service owners determined suitability in the actual work. The rejected cases needed an honest customer explanation and appropriate handling, rather than disappear from a success figure. We also could not convert the activity into an environmental claim without the evidence needed for that claim. A service business can have a worthwhile role in extending useful life while still needing precise definitions of what was done and what outcome has actually been established.

The loss required attention in its own right. It would have been convenient for me to point to the customer purpose and describe the financial account as someone else's measure of a longer-term investment. That would have weakened my recommendation. If strategic value justifies continuing expenditure, directors need to understand the nature of that value, the expected path and the limits of the commitment. The venture's accounts remain real even when the partnership serves a purpose beyond immediate return. A purpose should make the discussion more specific, not exempt it from financial scrutiny.

Equally, a single loss figure should not be made to answer every forward question. Management needs to explain the cost structure, work mix and opportunities available to the venture, with the appropriate financial owners establishing the account. My role is to ask whether those explanations support the next choice and whether the retailer's expectations fit the venture's actual capability. The answer might support further development, a revised arrangement or a narrower service proposition. It should not be predetermined by my desire to defend the structure I originally recommended.

## Change the question when you join the other board

I joined Velqeri's board in April 2024 as Qarvelli's nominated director. The 2021 investment recommendation was executive strategy work; the later seat added a different responsibility. It was not an independent appointment. I needed to understand the venture's governance and the duties of the role with appropriate guidance, rather than treat the seat as a more effective channel for giving retailer instructions. The fact that Qarvelli nominated me did not turn the venture into one of its operating departments.

That distinction changes how I prepare. A retailer may want a particular service priority, while the venture needs to consider its capacity, other obligations and financial position. The discussion requires an intelligible account of both, handled through the appropriate processes. I should not confuse loyalty to my employer with permission to ignore the business on whose board I sit. Nor should I imply that the nomination establishes independence from the shareholder relationship. The public profile needs to state the capacity accurately so a future board can assess the experience for what it is.

The seat has made me more attentive to the gap between a partnership presentation and a partnership lived over time. At the proposal stage, the focus is on why the parties should work together. Later, the work includes how they disagree, which evidence they accept and whether their commitments still fit the business. Those are not signs that the original partnership was necessarily a mistake. They are part of the undertaking selected instead of complete ownership. Strategy should leave room for them in the original account.

I would carry that perspective into a further board discussion without claiming that one venture has prepared me for every governance setting. The useful lesson is to make influence explicit, retain the separate business's financial account and notice when the role itself changes. A minority stake can be a sound route to capability. It is strongest when the organisation understands what it has bought, what it has not bought and how it will exercise its responsibilities when the relationship becomes more demanding than the opening presentation suggested.