My contribution to a board
I could help a manufacturing board examine whether a systems proposal preserves the business meaning that directors expect from it. My experience includes product history that remained qualified after transfer, measures that could not all be combined and software whose retirement required a funded transition. I would ask management to identify the decision owner and the unresolved assumption behind a reported completion or saving. That contribution should improve the enterprise discussion without turning the board into a design committee. I would need to learn the company's products, ownership and obligations before treating my own examples as relevant. Financial, legal and technical directors would bring judgements I cannot replace. The most useful result might be a clearer qualification or a better statement of cost, rather than another technology initiative. I want a chair to assess whether I can make those questions concise enough for collective oversight and whether my industrial systems experience complements the expertise already present.
My first year on a board
My induction would begin with the company's business model and the decisions its board makes from systems reports. Through arrangements agreed with the chair, I would meet finance, operations, legal and technology leaders to understand which definitions they share and where their accounts differ. I would read a completed investment proposal beside its follow-up, including the unresolved work and any changed assumptions. A site visit should help me understand how a transaction becomes a business record without creating a second route for staff to seek executive instructions. I would prepare on financial reporting and collective duties so that my technology experience did not narrow every discussion to an application problem. I would ask the chair for feedback on whether my questions clarify the enterprise choice or consume board time on a detail management should resolve. The first year's value would come from learning the company's context and contributing proportionately, rather than importing a preferred systems programme from my current employment.
Conflicts and their management
Qelzavi's parent group, regional investment trust, software suppliers, manufacturing customers and separation advisers may have relationships with a prospective company. I would disclose relevant interests and review those connections before accepting confidential papers. My current employment carries obligations even though I hold no statutory directorship. Product histories, contract terms, internal reporting definitions and retained-record assessments should not move between organisations through my board work. An anonymised account of my judgement is different from sharing the protected material behind it. If overlap made participation in the prospective board's central decisions repeatedly impractical, recusal alone might not create a useful appointment. Employer consent and time need the same early attention. Eighteen annual days is provisional and must cover preparation, meetings, committee work and exceptional demands alongside the CIO role. I would want the chair to understand those constraints before a shared interest in manufacturing technology was mistaken for an uncomplicated fit.
My independence statement
I have no statutory directorship. My employment, supplier relationships and interests would need company-specific examination against applicable Companies Act independence requirements, SEBI LODR conditions where relevant, committee obligations and directorship limits. A systems background does not establish independence. I would seek qualified advice on the proposed appointment before representing myself as eligible for it.
Judgement in practice
01Examining what a recipient can rely on after a transfer
Our review of 420 product-history records found thirty-seven provenance exceptions. After sixty-four lakh rupees and a six-week delay, thirty-one were resolved and six remained restricted. In a board role I would ask what acceptance means for the receiving business and how the residual obligation survives the project closure. The directors should see the cost of waiting and the consequence of transferring a qualified history. I would not ask the board to decide the permitted use of individual product records. Qualified technical and business owners retain that authority. The lesson for oversight concerns the claim attached to a milestone: does completion describe a technical event, an accepted business capability or a mixture of both? Management should explain the difference before another investment relies on the result. My executive case offers a question to test, while the proposed company's evidence must determine the answer.
02Keeping retirement economics distinct from a renewal headline
The review of 186 software entitlements led to thirty retirements and twelve reassessed items retained with owners. We spent twenty-seven lakh rupees on the programme, against estimated annualised avoided renewals of nineteen lakh rupees. As a director I would ask how a cost-reduction paper distinguishes transition expense, future avoided expenditure and realised benefit. A lower renewal list can be useful while still requiring a longer economic explanation. I would also want to know who confirmed the operational and contractual consequences of removing a tool. The board should examine whether those authorities were involved, not become the team that selects individual applications. The twelve retained items matter because the objective was an informed obligation, rather than the largest cancellation count. A proposal that shows both retained need and retired expenditure gives directors a better basis for judging the management decision.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology or risk committee where the remit fits manufacturing systems experience after induction |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qelzavi Industrial Webbing
Systems proposals and programme follow-up through the CEO; no board or committee membership
January 2022 – Present
I present selected systems investments and their business assumptions through CEO Leela Zorvheli. My employment titles have not included a statutory directorship. Financial, legal and technical decisions remain with the respective authorised owners.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 18 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Industrial manufacturing subsidiaries · Regional manufacturing groups · Businesses separating or consolidating systems responsibilities
- Company type
- A manufacturing company with complementary industrial, financial and legal expertise on its board
- Company stage
- Reconsidering the business obligations behind systems transfers or group reporting
The seat I am pursuing
I am considering one first non-executive appointment in a manufacturing business where organisational change or group reporting creates consequential systems decisions. A technology or risk committee could fit after induction, but I am not offering to chair an audit committee or provide a specialist legal opinion. The board should already have, or deliberately seek, complementary expertise. I have not registered with the IICA independent directors databank and would need to address the applicable preparation and eligibility requirements before proceeding. My eighteen-day allowance is subject to the real calendar and employer consent. I would value a chair who expects management to explain an unresolved difference rather than hide it inside a uniform presentation. My contribution would be to question the assumption, authority and economics behind the proposal. It would not be to direct another company's IT staff, introduce a preferred vendor or treat my experience with industrial webbing as knowledge of every manufacturing process.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered with the IICA independent directors databank and do not claim an assessment pass or exemption. If a board opportunity becomes concrete, I would establish the applicable registration, assessment and continuing requirements with qualified advisers before proceeding.
- Executive presentations on systems investments through the CEO since January 2022, without a statutory board seat.
- Preparation focuses on financial reporting, collective board decisions and the limits of a technology specialist's contribution.
- Further company-specific eligibility and databank work remains ahead of a proposed appointment.