Test the promise without taking over the product team
My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine how the business knows that its product supports the service it promises. My experience concerns the gap between a tidy software representation and the work people actually do around it. I would ask management to explain whose task has been examined, what the product assumes and what remains the customer's decision. The commercial implications matter alongside usability: a promise can create an obligation even when a technical feature works as designed. I would connect the research account with the company's priorities, resources and response to a material difficulty. I would not expect directors to choose interface details or direct researchers. Their contribution is to test whether management has an adequate basis for its claim and an accountable plan where the evidence is incomplete. I would need to learn the specific sector and work with colleagues whose financial, legal and operating experience complements mine. My familiarity with venue software is a starting point for questions, not authority over every service that uses a calendar.
Judgement in practice
01
The encouraging result still contained three barriers
After our keyboard programme, twenty-seven of thirty staff completed the tested tasks and three still needed help. I reported the unresolved cases with the improvement and noted that repeat participants already knew the task. On a board I would ask whether the evidence supports the breadth of the customer claim and what management intends to do about the remaining difficulty. I would not prescribe the focus order or act as a design approver. The oversight question concerns the company's understanding of the limitation, the consequence for users and the resources committed to the next examination. I would also want to know whether a commercial assurance had moved beyond the conditions actually tested, and who could correct that assurance before a customer relied on it.
02
A confirmed edit was not the whole customer agreement
Twenty-three of 140 recurring series contained holiday exceptions that differed from operator intentions. We funded a ₹36 lakh preview flow and corrected the examples with staff rather than automatically rewrite customer commitments. I would bring that distinction to a board discussion about a service change. Management should explain who has authority to alter the arrangement, what the software action establishes and what communication still needs to occur. The board can examine the consequences and accountability without designing the booking workflow. I would ask whether the proposed improvement leaves a clear record of the decision and whether affected customers have a route to resolve a disagreement. A technically completed change should not be used as shorthand for consent that the business has not actually obtained.
My first year on a board
I would start by learning how the company earns revenue and which promises require people to act outside its software. Through the chair's induction process I would meet the relevant executives and study a small number of consequential product or service decisions. I would include one where the expected result did not occur, asking what information was available at the time and how it reached the board. I would learn the financial and operating model before proposing familiar product methods. During the first year I would pay particular attention to the way research findings become commercial claims and how unresolved difficulties receive an owner. I would review committee responsibilities with experienced colleagues and ask for feedback on whether my questions stay at the level of oversight. By the end of the year I would want to understand the company's specific obligations well enough to challenge an unsupported assurance without treating every customer issue as a reason for directors to intervene in delivery. I would also reassess the time commitment against the actual preparation required, rather than assume the initial calendar had captured every demand.
Conflicts and their management
Oshveri's customers, suppliers, investors and competitors would need examination alongside my own interests and relevant family relationships. A venue or service business could have a commercial connection that is not apparent from its name. I would seek employer consent and arrange a relationship review before confidential papers were shared. I would not bring protected customer research into another company's discussion or use a board role to promote our software. If the core business repeatedly required me to withdraw because of a conflict, the appointment might not be workable. Disclosure should continue as relationships change, rather than be treated as a form completed once. I would ask the chair and appropriate advisers to assess any uncertainty early. My product expertise would not compensate for an inability to participate responsibly in the board's material decisions, and I would be prepared to decline a role where that limitation was fundamental.
My independence statement
My employment, financial interests, family relationships and the company's customer, supplier and investor connections would require disclosure and assessment. The company and qualified advisers would need to examine the applicable Companies Act requirements and any listed-company or committee conditions. A willingness to question a product decision does not itself establish legal independence.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Oshveri Venue Software
Board discussions of product investment and customer commitments
September 2023 – Present
I present product priorities, research findings and resource choices as an executive. I hold no board seat, do not vote on directors' decisions and distinguish my recommendations from their approval.