I would help a board examine whether the evidence supporting a commercial promise is as strong as management believes. My experience comes from a specialist service where people are paid to investigate and report, yet can face pressure to produce a reassuring conclusion. That creates questions about incentives, capability, escalation and the willingness to accept an unwelcome result. I would also bring practical experience of workforce investment and changing a service's charging model when technology reduces effort. Those perspectives could be useful beyond software testing, provided I learn the company's own economics rather than assume the same methods apply everywhere. I would not present myself as a financial-audit specialist or a certifier of its technology. My contribution would be to connect the evidence, commercial incentives and allocation of responsibility, working with colleagues whose expertise covers areas I have not led. A board needs a collective view of the business, not a second operational reporting line into one director's preferred subject.
Judgement in practice
01
Making room for an unhelpful answer
When a client requested an endorsement beyond our test scope, I removed myself from direct account negotiation because I had sponsored the relationship. We retained the qualified technical report and accepted a seven-week delay in a ₹42 lakh milestone. On another board I would ask whether management has a credible route for consequential findings to survive commercial pressure, including pressure from senior executives. I would want to see who can challenge the proposed conclusion and what happens when payment or a renewal depends on the answer. Directors should understand that process and the financial exposure without becoming the authors of the technical report. The case also reminds me to examine my own position. A leader who says that challenge is welcome can still make it difficult if everyone knows that the disputed account is personally important to them.
02
Treating development as an investment with stages
The apprenticeship proposal became more credible when we stopped treating recruitment, programme completion and assignment readiness as the same event. We funded the learning and mentoring explicitly, then reported thirty-six starters, thirty-one completers and twenty-four scoped placements at the review date. As a director, I would ask how a capability investment moves through those stages and which assumptions connect it to the revenue plan. I would also ask who carries the cost when people need more time or a different assignment. A board should challenge a capacity forecast that relies on unobserved readiness, while avoiding the opposite error of judging every learning programme only by immediate utilisation. The decision belongs within a broader view of strategy, expected demand and the company's ability to develop the skills it needs. Management should retain responsibility for individual assignments and the detailed teaching process.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the company's revenue model and the obligations that customers believe accompany it. With the chair and CEO, I would agree an induction that includes a small selection of contracts, operating reports and decisions where management declined an attractive opportunity. I would meet the leaders responsible for finance, customers, delivery and people to understand where their views of the business differ. For a service company, I would pay particular attention to the relationship between capacity, capability and the sales plan. I would then use the established board and committee calendar to ask questions, rather than introduce an additional informal review process around myself. By the end of the first year, I would seek feedback on whether I had helped colleagues distinguish a strong conclusion from a confident presentation. I would also review whether my initial estimate of eighteen days had matched the actual work, including preparation, travel and unexpected issues, before making any further commitment.
Conflicts and their management
Belsori's customers, prospective clients, employees and investment relationships could overlap with another company's interests. I would disclose those connections before a serious appointment discussion and revisit them as circumstances change. I would not bring confidential test findings, client weaknesses, commercial terms or staff information into another boardroom. A company that regularly buys or competes for our services may present a conflict too extensive for occasional recusal to resolve. My current board would need to consider the proposed commitment, including the possibility that an incident at either company demands attention outside the normal calendar. Employee ownership also gives me an economic relationship with Belsori that must be disclosed rather than treated as incidental. I would prefer to decline a seat whose conflicts repeatedly remove me from important discussions, because nominal attendance would not deliver the contribution the company is seeking.
My independence statement
My existing appointment is an executive directorship at Belsori. For any proposed outside seat, my employment, holdings, relationships and other interests would require assessment against section 149(6) and the requirements applicable to that company. Relevant SEBI LODR provisions and directorship or committee limits would be reviewed where they apply. I would not infer independence from being outside the management team alone.
Board and committee exposure
Served as a director
Belsori Software Assurance
Executive director on the company board; no separate committee chair appointment
April 2020–present
Presents company strategy, investment choices, performance and operating risks; participates as an executive director in collective board decisions.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Joined the IICA independent directors databank in February 2026. Preparation for the proficiency assessment is ongoing; no passing result or exemption is claimed. This fictional learning record does not establish suitability or legal eligibility for a particular appointment.
Proficiency-assessment preparation following February 2026 databank registration
Structured study of non-executive duties alongside current executive-board experience
Further work on financial reporting and the responsibilities of board committees