Harpreet Velqethi · Chief Information Officer · India
What business conclusion does the technical result support?
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the business assertion behind a technical result. A message processed, a record merged, a history displayed or a task passed can each support a useful conclusion without supporting every conclusion attached to it. My experience connects distribution systems with commercial insurance, where the meaning of an instruction and the authority to act on it need careful separation. I would bring that habit to oversight while learning the proposed company's particular obligations and operating model. I have no statutory directorships and would not treat executive presentations as equivalent experience. The board should have complementary sector, financial and legal expertise, and I would seek appropriate induction before offering a view on unfamiliar risks. The contribution I hope to make is a clear question that changes the basis of a decision, rather than a detailed technical intervention that leaves management uncertain about who owns the system or the professional judgement it supports.
Judgement in practice
01
Refusing to let a matching rule decide the business identity
The customer-record project proposed 740 merges based on similarities in names and contact details. Review established 196 same-entity matches, 487 distinct entities and 57 unresolved cases. We spent ₹62 lakh on review and workflow, retaining the uncertainty instead of merging every similar-looking record. I would use this experience to ask what business assertion an automated action makes and who is authorised to support it. The result was not a general claim that all customer data had been verified, nor a fraud conclusion about unresolved matches. It was a decision on a defined population, with useful relationships preserved without forcing a single identity. A board should be able to see the benefit of accepted combinations alongside the cost and reason for keeping other records separate.
02
Keeping four blocked tasks in the report after a useful release
Keyboard review initially found 21 blocked tasks within a set of sixty. After ₹1.2 crore of changes, 56 of the same sixty passed, while four retained an assisted route funded through ₹24 lakh annual capacity. I would ask directors to examine whether a programme's reported completion includes the work still needed by people outside the main demonstration. The four tasks were not removed from the denominator, and the test did not certify the entire application against every accessibility requirement. The supported release was valuable within its scope, with further work and assistance explicitly retained. My contribution would be to connect the technical result, the affected working task and the ongoing operating cost, so the board does not approve a success claim whose unfinished responsibilities have quietly been transferred elsewhere.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the business decisions that depend most heavily on the company's systems and the evidence management uses to describe their reliability. Through agreed induction arrangements, I would examine a few recent changes from approval to operating review, including an exception that did not follow the main journey. I would ask how the company distinguishes message processing from business completion, record similarity from identity and a passed test from a broader assurance claim. Those questions should become specific to the company as I learn, rather than remain a checklist imported from insurance. I would also study the committee remit and seek feedback from the chair about the usefulness of my interventions. Discussion with management would follow the board's agreed channels, with no parallel instructions to engineers or service teams. I would want to see whether the original investment account retains support costs and unfinished scope after release, because that is often where the business consequence of a technical decision becomes clearer.
Conflicts and their management
Qorzuni's investment owner, industrial shareholder, technology providers, distribution relationships and professional advisers could overlap with a prospective company's interests. I would disclose relevant connections and obtain employer consent before receiving confidential material. A role dominated by decisions about my employer or an important supplier relationship may not be workable even if individual recusals seem available. I would not transfer customer records, system diagrams, security findings or unpublished supplier terms from employment to another board. The absence of personal equity does not remove the interest created by a continuing CIO appointment. Appropriate advice should address independence, eligibility, applicable limits and the proposed committee responsibilities. I would also test the 23-day allowance against travel, preparation and exceptional demands, including the possibility of an incident in either organisation. The appointment should leave enough capacity for meaningful participation; a nominal technology presence would not help a board if conflicts or competing obligations repeatedly prevented me from contributing to its central decisions.
My independence statement
Any proposed independent appointment requires its own review of employment, ownership and commercial relationships. No independent status or eligibility is established by this demonstration.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qorzuni Commercial Assurance
Technology investment and operating-risk reviews
January 2021–Present
Presents as CIO through the CEO, without a statutory seat, committee membership or director's vote.