My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the commitments that become embedded in a product long before they appear as a service problem. A proposed contract may promise a completion window, a bespoke approval sequence or access to records after termination. Each has engineering and commercial consequences. I can follow those dependencies and ask whether management's estimate includes the continuing obligation. My experience is most useful where a company serves institutional customers and must balance a reusable product with justified differences between clients. I would also ask what evidence supports a performance claim. A matching rate, a throughput figure or an export row count can be accurate while answering less than the board assumes. I would not bring authority over another company's accounting or regulatory decisions, and I have not served as a director before. I would contribute a product-engineering perspective to collective judgement while learning from directors whose financial, legal and market experience is deeper than mine.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology or product committee where established · Risk committee where the proposed remit fits my experience and eligibility |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Enterprise software for institutional customers · Financial-operations technology · Specialised business services
- Company type
- Management-owned or privately funded company with a substantive board and clear executive responsibility
- Company stage
- Growing beyond bespoke delivery into a maintained product or repeatable service
The seat I am pursuing
The best fit would be a privately owned enterprise-software or specialist service company moving from individual customer projects towards a maintained product. I could contribute to a technology, product or risk committee where its remit and my eligibility support the appointment. I am not seeking an initial chair role. I would want the board to have a clear reason for adding this experience, such as judging product investment, customer concentration or the support burden of exceptional contracts. A seat intended mainly to reassure buyers that a technology executive is associated with the company would not make good use of my time. I would expect a substantive induction, access to the evidence needed for board decisions and an established management team that remains accountable for execution. My contribution would be to the quality of the board's choices, including a willingness to question a commercially attractive promise before the company becomes bound to it.
Judgement in practice
01Giving up an attractive automation headline
The proposed matching release showed a 91% simulated automatic-closure rate, but fifty-four suggestions in the historical test did not represent the adjudicated relationship. I accepted a reduction to 76% after excluding ambiguous groups. The trade-off was additional review work and a less attractive sales claim. As a director, I would ask what management's measure includes and whether the cases most likely to challenge the proposition were examined. I would want the board to understand the difference between a technical suggestion and the institution's authorised financial conclusion. I would not choose matching rules from the boardroom. The relevant contribution is to recognise a proposal whose apparent benefit depends on suppressing ambiguity, then ask management to present a defensible alternative and its cost. The same reasoning applies beyond reconciliation when a product's success measure is easier to improve than the outcome customers actually rely on.
02Funding a useful exit for a departing customer
The export rehearsal exposed 2,400 attachment references that could not be followed from the initial package. I supported ₹18 lakh of additional engineering work even though the customer was leaving. Finance challenged the cost, and the contract owner confirmed the agreed scope before work proceeded. The decision recognised that a supplier's obligation can outlast its opportunity to sell more. In a board role I would ask whether management understands what a customer needs to exercise an agreed exit, and whether the cost has been considered before renewal discussions become difficult. I would not assume that every request from a departing client is contractually owed. The company needs a precise account of scope, evidence and responsibility. My experience would help directors question a claim of portability that rests only on a file being downloadable, while leaving the contract interpretation and delivery work with the authorised executives.
My first year on a board
I would begin by learning how the company makes and maintains its promises. I would read a selection of board-approved investment proposals, understand the revenue model and meet the leaders responsible for product, delivery, finance and customer relationships. With the chair's agreement, I would ask to see how a representative contract becomes an operating service, including the work required after the first implementation. I would study the committee remit and avoid turning my access into a parallel technical review. Early questions would concern the assumptions behind a proposal, the point at which an exception requires a new decision and the evidence used to judge whether the customer outcome has been achieved. I would also learn the company's risks outside technology, so my contribution did not narrow every discussion to engineering. Over the first annual cycle I would seek feedback on whether my questions improved decisions, and whether I had asked for detail that belonged with management rather than the board.
Conflicts and their management
A prospective appointment must be examined against Orevathi's client, supplier and competitor relationships. A company could appear to operate in a different sector while buying our product, bidding for our engineering work or competing for the same institutional account. I would disclose relevant interests and seek employer consent before proceeding. I would not bring confidential client examples or commercial terms into another board's discussion, nor offer access to Orevathi's engineers as an informal benefit of appointing me. Independence, directorship limits and committee requirements would need review under the rules applicable to the proposed company. If conflicts would repeatedly remove me from its central decisions, occasional recusal would not be an adequate basis for accepting the seat. The twenty-two-day allowance includes preparation and travel but needs testing against the actual calendar and likely demands. I would prefer to decline an unsuitable appointment early rather than accept a title whose obligations I could not fulfil responsibly.
My independence statement
I would disclose my employment, interests and material relationships before any proposed appointment. Independence must be assessed for the particular company under section 149(6) of the Companies Act and other applicable rules, including SEBI LODR where relevant. The proposed company must examine those relationships before it can determine the capacity in which I could serve.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Orevathi Settlement Systems
Board product and technology agenda; executive presenter
2020–present
Explained product-investment trade-offs, shared-service capacity and exceptional customer commitments to directors; no directorship or committee membership.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not yet registered with the IICA independent directors databank or taken its proficiency assessment. I would address the applicable preparation and appointment requirements before accepting a relevant role; my executive experience is not a claimed exemption.
- Reading director-duty and financial-reporting material to broaden product-engineering judgement
- Reviewing board papers with attention to the decision sought rather than the technical detail supplied
- Planning formal governance preparation and company-specific induction before a first appointment