My contribution to a board
I would bring a service-based way of questioning technology claims. My experience concerns the context carried by a record, the circumstances in which a communication is received, the current owner of supplier access and the evidence behind a recovery result. Those questions connect technology spending with responsibilities that sit across the organisation. A director should understand whether management has identified the right owner and tested the result that matters, rather than assume a completed implementation answers every service obligation. I could help make that discussion clearer without replacing management's technical decisions or the judgement of clinical, legal and financial specialists. I would first learn the prospective company's business model and the consequences of its particular dependencies. A method developed in hearing services may suggest a useful question elsewhere, but it is not a ready-made answer for a different sector. My aim would be to improve the board's interpretation of evidence and uncertainty, including the point at which another kind of expertise is required.
Judgement in practice
01The recovery report retained the missing context
Two of seven datasets in our recovery exercise lacked attachment references even though the application opened. I kept the overall service objective open, funded corrective work within a ₹49 lakh programme and required a repeat that included service owners. All seven passed at the tested point. In a board role I would ask what a recovery claim means for the work the business must resume, and what remains outside the exercise. I would not prescribe technical architecture from the board table. I would seek assurance that management has defined a useful objective, involved the relevant owners and reported exceptions honestly. The original technical success and the incomplete service result could both be true, and directors needed an account that preserved that distinction before accepting the broader completion claim.
02Removing access required a continuing route for support
Seven of eighteen reviewed vendor accounts lacked a current internal owner. We revoked those accounts and funded ₹18 lakh of clearer sponsorship and review work. I also asked how legitimate urgent support would be obtained, because closing a formal route without a workable replacement can encourage less visible arrangements. As a director I would examine whether a control has an accountable owner and whether the operating process makes it usable. I would keep the action separate from an unsupported claim that a specific attack had been prevented. The useful board question concerns the reason for access, the person responsible for that reason and the evidence that the relationship is reconsidered when work or personnel changes. A completed review does not remove the need for continuing management attention.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the service commitments that technology enables and the places where a technical failure changes somebody else's decision. Through the chair's induction arrangements, I would meet operating, finance, legal and technology leaders and study recent board papers, incidents and investment choices. I would ask to examine a recovery exercise or supplier decision in enough detail to understand how management defined success. I would also learn the committee remit before suggesting where my experience could help. During the first year I would watch whether the board receives clear distinctions between implementation, operational use and independently supported outcomes. I would avoid turning that interest into direct instructions to the IT team. Feedback from the chair would help me recognise when my questions support oversight and when I am drifting towards executive problem solving. By the year's end I would want a grounded understanding of the business's critical dependencies and a realistic view of the preparation the seat requires.
Conflicts and their management
My current employer's technology suppliers, referral relationships, service partners, owners and competitors would require careful review alongside personal investments and relevant family connections. A prospective company could create a conflict through a supplier or investor even when its main activity appears unrelated to hearing services. I would seek employer consent and appropriate advice before exchanging sensitive material. The appointment should not give either business access to the other's clinical records, commercial arrangements or technical weaknesses. If a relationship changed after appointment, I would disclose it promptly and work with the chair and qualified advisers on the appropriate response. Repeated exclusion from central decisions could make the seat impractical; it should not be treated as a minor administrative inconvenience. I would rather establish that limitation while discussing fit than accept a role whose most important work I could not responsibly join.
My independence statement
Any proposed appointment would need the company's assessment of applicable Companies Act independence conditions, relevant SEBI LODR requirements for a listed entity, committee responsibilities and directorship limits. My employment, investments, family connections and business relationships must be disclosed for that assessment. A CIO title or future databank registration cannot establish independence by itself.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Fervali Hearing Services
Full board by invitation on technology investment, continuity and supplier risk
July 2022 – Present
I explain technology proposals and significant service-system findings to directors when invited. I attend in my executive capacity, without a directorship, committee membership or vote, and clinical matters remain with the appropriate professionals.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered with the IICA independent directors databank, passed its proficiency assessment or established an exemption. Before a proposed Indian appointment proceeds, I would obtain appropriate advice and complete the requirements that apply to my circumstances. This profile records preparation in progress rather than a completed eligibility claim.
- Since July 2022 I have presented technology investment and continuity matters to Fervali's directors by invitation, without serving on the board.
- My next preparation includes directors' duties, financial statements, risk oversight and the limits of technology expertise in collective board decisions. I have not completed a director qualification.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology or risk oversight after learning the company's specific duties |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 18 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Regional service networks · Education and professional-support services · Healthcare support without competitive or supplier conflicts
- Company type
- An established private service company whose board needs a clearer account of technology dependence
- Company stage
- Expanding across locations while strengthening continuity, communications and supplier accountability
The seat I am pursuing
I am considering one first non-executive appointment in a service business with a substantive technology-risk question and complementary expertise around its board table. I could join an appropriate committee after induction, but I am not presenting myself as ready to chair one on arrival. Eighteen days annually is a provisional allowance that includes reading, meetings, travel and exceptional work, subject to employer agreement. I hold no directorship and my databank preparation is unfinished. The company must assess eligibility, independence and capacity for the actual seat, with appropriate advice. I would value a board that wants to understand how systems support professional decisions and how management knows a control works in practice. I would decline a role that depended on clinical advice from me, routine executive delivery or privileged access to Fervali's relationships. A useful fit should make the contribution and its boundaries clear before an appointment is agreed.