My contribution to a board
I would bring a product leader's attention to the people whose intentions a business turns into a commitment. A family contributor may not be its final editor; a purchaser may not share a recipient's preferences; an attractive preview may have hidden a choice the customer still needs to make. I would help directors ask whether management understands those distinctions and whether the operating model can support the promise. My experience includes changing my own preferred design when research exposed its weakness, which helps me challenge a proposal without treating its sponsor as careless. I have not served on a statutory board and would need to learn how to contribute selectively within collective oversight. I would rely on financial, legal and operational expertise around the table rather than present product experience as sufficient authority across those fields. The useful contribution is a sharper question about the undertaking, not a replacement design brief.
Judgement in practice
01Recognising that more editing rights did not settle shared intent
The family-album study involved forty groups: twenty-six wanted an appointed editor and fourteen preferred shared editing. I had initially supported one unrestricted mode because it appeared more open. The ₹61 lakh programme instead made two deliberate modes available, separating contribution from final approval where the group wanted that boundary. In a later fifty-two-group pilot, thirty-nine completed and thirteen remained unfinished within the observation period. As a director I would ask whether a collaborative proposition makes authority and commitment understandable to the people involved. I would not treat unfinished work as proved abandonment or claim the pilot isolated a causal completion uplift. The additional design and testing cost belongs beside the benefit of representing different ways to work. A board should see both the human decision the product supports and the continuing responsibilities management must carry to make it reliable.
02Keeping the recipient's task outside an acquisition requirement
The digital-companion proposal initially required a recipient account to read the main personal message associated with a printed book. Thirty-eight of sixty interviewed adult recipients wanted a complete physical experience, while twenty-two were interested in an optional companion. We funded ₹39 lakh to make the printed gift complete and the digital addition separately optional. That gave up a preferred account-acquisition route without supplying a measured lost-revenue figure. In oversight I would ask whose task the product is serving at a consequential step and whether management has confused a purchaser's choice with a recipient's agreement. I would preserve the commercial argument for a continuing relationship, but expect the optional benefit to be clear in its own terms. The case supports a product decision within a defined study; it does not establish universal recipient preferences or replace the assessments of privacy, legal and other responsible specialists.
My first year on a board
I would spend the first year learning how the proposed company earns its revenue, fulfils its customer promises and responds when those promises are misunderstood. Induction should include management's account of the product lifecycle, the financial consequences of the offer and the operating responsibilities behind it. I would read a small number of recent investment papers and follow how their assumptions were reviewed after approval. Through the chair, I would seek appropriate opportunities to hear from customer-facing and operating colleagues without creating a parallel reporting line. My contribution should be a few prepared questions that connect the proposition to the undertaking, rather than an attempt to redesign every interaction. I would ask for feedback on where my questions had helped collective judgement and where they had become too detailed. Sector and governance learning would remain part of the year, particularly where another company's risks differ from those of personalised retail.
Conflicts and their management
Qerzuni's suppliers, creative partners, studio relationships and technology providers could overlap with a prospective company's interests. I would disclose the relevant relationships and seek employer consent and professional advice before accepting confidential material. A recurring conflict that removed me from central discussions would need to be considered as a reason not to take the seat, rather than assumed manageable through repeated absence. Customer photographs, unpublished designs and commercial terms from my employment would remain protected; familiarity with them would not make them available for another board's use. I would test the twenty-four-day allowance against preparation, travel, committee work and unexpected events, not only the published meeting dates. Those commitments must remain compatible with the executive role I continue to hold. I would also review changes in relationships or workload after appointment so the original assessment does not become an outdated explanation for continuing.
My independence statement
Qerzuni employment and commercial connections require company-specific review. No personal equity holding does not establish independence. Applicable Companies Act conditions, SEBI LODR where relevant, committee eligibility and directorship limits should be assessed with appropriate professional advice.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy or product committee where established, after induction and fit review · Risk committee where customer commitments match the remit and eligibility requirements are satisfied |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qerzuni Gift Studio
Board product-investment and customer-experience discussions
January 2022–Present
Presents through the CEO as an executive; no statutory seat, board vote or committee membership.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Personalised consumer products · Specialist retail and creative services · Businesses combining a physical product with a digital service
- Company type
- A consumer business with complementary financial, operating and legal expertise on its board
- Company stage
- Reviewing the customer undertaking behind a new proposition or service model
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in one first non-executive appointment where the board wants to examine the customer meaning of a product or service commitment. Specialist retail, creative services or a business joining physical and digital experiences could be relevant, but the actual mandate and directors around the table would determine fit. A suitable strategy, product or risk committee might be a place to contribute after induction and eligibility review. I am not offering immediate committee-chair experience. I hold no statutory seats, and June 2026 IICA registration is recorded alongside unfinished assessment preparation and no exemption claim. Any proposed appointment would need its own consideration of requirements, independence, consent and time. I would value a role where a practical challenge can lead to a better-supported decision, including proceeding confidently when the proposition and operating account are sound. My aim is to develop useful oversight rather than extend my executive authority into a second company.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Mina's fictional record includes IICA independent directors databank registration in June 2026. Assessment preparation is unfinished; no exemption or completed assessment is claimed.
- Executive product-investment presentations to Qerzuni directors since January 2022
- Developing an oversight perspective on customer commitments and product decisions
- IICA registration June 2026, with assessment preparation continuing