Chief Operating Officer / India
What changed between dispatch and a usable result
- Outdoor-living retail estate
- 29 shops
- Fictional Amlaqeri Leisure Stores, based in Mysuru
- Operating remit
- 690 colleagues
- Seven leaders within a company workforce of 980
- Delegated annual operating expense
- ₹48 crore
- Excludes merchandise purchases and separately approved capital
Decisions & consequences
01Checking the route before confirming a bulky delivery
In FY2023, eighty-two of 640 attempted outdoor-furniture orders failed at the first visit because of access constraints. The product could fit the intended patio or garden room while its packaged sections could not travel through the available doors, stairs or turns. I had accepted a planning process that recorded product dimensions and destination space without consistently establishing the route between them. Crews were then expected to resolve the omission at the customer's home.
Commercial colleagues were concerned that additional questions and visits would slow conversion. They preferred to keep the date attractive and manage unusual cases through experienced delivery teams. I argued that eighty-two failures were not a small set of surprises we could reasonably leave to improvisation. We funded ₹26 lakh of planning, measurement and training work, with clear questions about the proposed access and permission for site visits when needed. The planning allowance added three days to the promise where that review was required, rather than pretending the extra work took no time.
Installation head Darius Terzavek worked with the relevant specialists on what the access review could establish. A measurement did not certify a building's structural suitability or authorise an unapproved lifting method. Where the original configuration could not be delivered appropriately, the commercial and professional owners considered a different configuration or cancellation under the relevant terms. I wanted the customer to receive a workable proposal before arranging the delivery day, not a crew forced to choose between an unsafe improvisation and another failed visit.
A later FY2024 cohort recorded thirty-five access-related first-visit failures among 720 attempted orders. The periods and order mix differed, so I did not attribute the entire improvement to the planning change. Failures still occurred, and the additional planning expense remained in the operating account. The outcome supported continuing the approach while reviewing exceptions. My lesson was that destination suitability and delivery access are separate questions. I had learned that in exhibition work, but needed to make it part of our retail process rather than assume experience would compensate for a missing step.
Equipping an assembly visit before counting it as ready
A review of 920 assembly jobs in FY2024 identified 113 second visits caused by missing or unsuitable supplies. The furniture itself had often arrived correctly. The problem was that the crew did not have the approved component or tool needed for the particular configuration. Our dispatch account treated the main product as the order, while the practical work required a more complete preparation. I asked product and installation leaders to define that preparation together.
They organised fifty-eight product configurations into twelve approved kit families, retaining the configuration-specific requirements within each family. The product specialists decided what could be grouped and which components could not be substituted. Some warehouse colleagues preferred a smaller range of generic kits because it would be easier to pick and replenish. I supported the technically approved approach even where it required more careful handling. A similar-looking component was not a sufficient reason to treat two requirements as interchangeable.
The board approved ₹68 lakh capital for kit and tool assets, with a further ₹17 lakh of training and setup operating expense. Finance retained responsibility for classification and the asset account; I did not describe the combined ₹85 lakh as a single recurring expense. Crews and dispatch teams practised the preparation and exception process before the pilot began. If an approved requirement could not be met, the visit needed a revised plan rather than a substitute chosen simply to clear the loading area.
In a later cohort of 940 jobs, forty-one required a second visit for missing or unsuitable supplies. That was an encouraging operating result, but the cohorts were not a controlled comparison and other conditions could affect the difference. The count did not establish technical acceptance of every installation or capture every possible reason for a return visit. I kept those limits in the review. The useful change was that assembly resources became part of readiness before dispatch. I would now require the same preparation account when a new product configuration is introduced, before the first missing component turns an apparently completed delivery into another journey.
Creating assembly space by accepting less warehouse storage
In FY2025 we needed more assembly capacity near the Mysuru operation. One option was a separate 12,000-square-foot depot at ₹72 lakh annual rent with ₹1.1 crore fitout capital. Another was to convert 5,200 square feet of the existing 42,000-square-foot warehouse. The conversion required ₹1.9 crore capital and ₹23 lakh of one-off relocation and inventory-handling expense. It would preserve a single main handoff, but reduce pallet positions from 420 to 328.
The warehouse team objected that the conversion would make storage less forgiving during seasonal peaks. The separate depot offered more space and avoided taking ninety-two positions away from stock. I accepted that advantage. I nevertheless recommended the conversion because the proposed sequence kept assembly connected to the existing operation, provided the company was prepared to change its stock assumptions. Buying and finance colleagues reviewed the authorised inventory plan, including a reduction in the bulk safety holding for the selected range from 220 sets to 154. That quantity change was not treated as a cash saving without a separate valuation account.
The board approved the conversion with the property, technical and operating reviews required for the work. The transition took five weeks across December 2024 and January 2025. I was responsible for the operating sequence, while qualified specialists retained decisions about the premises, equipment and conditions for use. The project did not create free space simply because the building already existed. It exchanged storage capacity for assembly capacity and depended on other functions carrying out the revised plan.
From January through June 2025, the area supported 1,860 assemblies. We also used overflow storage for nine weeks at ₹11 lakh expense, reported separately from the original ₹23 lakh transition allowance. I did not claim that avoiding the proposed lease rent represented a net saving, because the alternatives had different capital, capacity and ongoing consequences. The review needed to follow all of them. I would now make displaced capacity a prominent part of the first proposal: when an existing building absorbs new work, directors should see what it can no longer hold as well as what it can now do.
Reopening installation jobs that a photograph had closed
Between June and August 2026, 512 contractor installations had been marked complete using an account that relied heavily on photographs. A follow-up review confirmed 451 as complete and identified sixty-one requiring further work or clarification. A photograph could show the furniture in place without establishing that every agreed installation item had been finished. I had accepted a reporting process that made dispatch and visible presence easier to prove than the customer's usable result.
Some colleagues wanted to keep the reporting approach because it closed jobs quickly and gave finance a clear payment event. Contractors also needed predictable settlement rather than open-ended exposure to any later complaint. I agreed with that concern, but it did not make an incomplete job complete. We spent ₹34 lakh on verification and contract review, defining the evidence for the agreed milestones and a route for resolving outstanding items. Customer confirmation contributed where appropriate; silence did not become acceptance, and neither a photograph nor a customer's response replaced a required technical check.
Payment components were reviewed under the agreed terms with professional advice. Undisputed amounts were processed through the proper route, while genuinely disputed milestones remained separately identified. We did not use an unresolved trim or adjustment item as a blanket reason to withhold an entire invoice. Operations owned the job status and follow-up, with finance and contract advisers retaining their respective responsibilities. The aim was a more accurate completion account and a fair settlement process, not a convenient way to postpone cash outflow.
By 30 September, forty-six of the sixty-one follow-ups had been completed, nine had been rescheduled by customers and six still required contractor correction. Those six remained open at the 16 October review. We did not merge customer rescheduling with contractor failure or describe all 512 jobs as resolved. My lesson was to define completion before choosing the easiest evidence to collect. A useful record should tell the next colleague what remains to be done and who owns it. The photograph can support that account, but it should not become the whole meaning of a finished installation.