Chief Strategy Officer / India
The alternative we chose and the price it carried
Decisions & consequences
01Building seven agreed handoffs before describing a wider network
In 2022 we considered extending our reach through three neighbouring parcel cooperatives. The initial discussion used a combined service map that made the opportunity look almost immediate. Each partner already had a regional presence, but the ability to hand work between organisations required its own commercial and operating account. We identified twelve proposed handoffs for review rather than treating the three existing networks as one available capacity.
The growth sponsor wanted to introduce the broader proposition quickly and resolve individual handoff questions as customer demand appeared. That would allow the partners to learn through actual enquiries and avoid losing attention during a long preparation period. Farida wanted the responsibilities settled for the scope being offered. I supported₹42 lakh of review work with the partners' authorised owners, keeping each organisation's decisions and obligations explicit.
Seven handoffs reached an agreed basis and five remained unresolved. We recommended a limited next stage confined to the agreed scope, through the responsible commercial, legal and operating approvals. The seven agreements were not a delivery-performance result or proof of national coverage. They did not transfer every partner's capacity, authority or customer relationship into Qemravi. The five unresolved handoffs stayed outside the proposition until the relevant questions could be settled.
The choice surrendered some of the simplicity and visibility of a larger combined launch. It also retained the coordination work that a single brand presentation might have concealed. I would specify the handoff responsibilities alongside the first map next time, rather than allow geography to become the main evidence of readiness. Federation can be a useful way for member-owned enterprises to grow together, but the strategy must explain what has actually been agreed and which organisation remains responsible at each boundary. A shared ambition is a reason to develop a service, not evidence that the service already exists in every place shown.
Choosing nonexclusive work when the larger model would change our channel
A 2023 platform proposal modelled₹24 crore annual gross customer billings for a private-label, exclusive arrangement. The volume was attractive, and I initially gave it more weight than the control implications. A large channel could supply work that members would otherwise have to find through many smaller relationships. It could also influence how the cooperative reached customers and what alternatives remained available during the agreement.
The commercial sponsor preferred the exclusive proposal. Concentrating effort could simplify acquisition, and declining it might leave members with less work in the near term. I accepted that cost. After review through the appropriate governing, executive, financial and legal owners, I recommended a nonexclusive arrangement with a₹9 crore annual gross-billings forecast. The selected terms preserved a different channel relationship rather than matching the larger model's apparent scale. We used₹31 lakh for commercial preparation.
Actual gross billings under the arrangement were₹6 crore in FY 2024–25. Of that,₹4.7 crore was paid to working members and₹1.3 crore retained before central costs. The retained amount was not profit, and the actual result remained below the₹9 crore forecast. The₹24 crore alternative was a model, not revenue that had been earned and then lost. We did not claim that the smaller arrangement proved every concern about exclusivity or that its commercial outcome was already superior.
The decision made a form of independence more explicit while accepting a narrower near-term opportunity. I owned the fact that the largest figure had first drawn me toward the other option. I would bring the channel-control discussion into the first comparison rather than treat it as a later qualification to the volume paper. A cooperative can knowingly choose a major customer relationship, but its working owners should understand the decisions and alternatives that accompany it. Strategy should make that choice visible instead of allowing the gross-billings model to decide the enterprise's future shape by itself.
Leaving eight pickup clusters in place after counting members' travel
A 2024 consolidation proposal compared two arrangements for fourteen pickup clusters. Full centralisation modelled₹1.9 crore annual cooperative expense. A distributed option, retaining eight clusters and moving six, modelled₹2.8 crore. The₹90 lakh annual difference was substantial. The central account, however, did not fully describe the travel working members would contribute to reach the proposed hub.
A review involving sixty members estimated median one-way travel at twelve minutes under the existing arrangement and thirty-five under full consolidation. These were planning estimates for the reviewed participants, not observed outcomes after a move. The finance sponsor favoured the lower central expense and argued that one hub could simplify coordination. Some members accepted that a more concentrated network might bring benefits. Others questioned why their additional journey sat outside the cost comparison when their work made the service possible.
I recommended the distributed option through the cooperative's governing and executive process. Eight clusters remained and six moved after the appropriate operating review, with₹37 lakh of transition work. Qualified owners retained actual location, route, handling and safety decisions. We did not claim that the selected arrangement preserved every member's journey time or had already produced a return on the higher modelled expense. The full-consolidation estimate remained a counterfactual planning input, not a measured saving we had rejected.
The choice kept more local coordination and accepted a higher central cost than the simpler hub proposal. That was the price of recognising the wider work in this decision, not proof that decentralisation is always preferable. I would include member access in the first options brief next time. A cooperative's account can be financially precise and still incomplete if it stops at the office boundary. Strategy needs to show who carries the effort before the institution decides which arrangement is efficient for the enterprise it actually is.
Keeping cash collection as an undecided adjacency
In 2025 fifty selected retail enquiries raised the possibility of collecting payment when parcels were delivered. Thirty-two requested cash collection and eighteen concerned prepaid parcels. Commercial colleagues saw an adjacent service that could make the existing network more useful. Members already carried the parcel;to a customer, the additional transaction could appear to be a small extension of the same visit. I wanted the strategy review to examine the new responsibility rather than assume that proximity made it simple.
We funded₹36 lakh of feasibility work with the relevant finance, legal and operating owners. The review considered custody, skills, commercial relationships and the account of responsibility required before any launch. It did not create a payment service or prescribe a process for collecting or settling money. The customer-interest count was evidence of requests in a selected set, not a forecast of income or proof that the cooperative had the capability to fulfil them.
The commercial sponsor wanted a limited launch to learn faster. I recommended deferring cash collection while continuing the existing prepaid-parcel offer. The governing and executive owners retained the future decision. The important requirements had not been settled sufficiently for the added responsibility to enter the service. No cash was collected under this proposed extension, and no settlement income, margin or operating result is claimed. The fifty requests did not become fifty accepted commitments.
The cost was a possible commercial opening left unanswered for the time being, alongside the feasibility expense already incurred. I would ask the next adjacency sponsor to describe the responsibility added before estimating the value of attaching it to an existing movement. That should help distinguish an extension of reach from a change in the business itself. The opportunity remains open to reconsideration if the responsible owners can establish an appropriate basis. Keeping it undecided is more useful than describing an unfinished proposal as a completed growth initiative.