Rina Qevshuri · Chief Data Officer · India
I would help directors examine whether a management claim is supported by the population, timing and event meaning of its evidence. My experience includes correcting a report I approved, stopping an operational prediction rollout and challenging a customer-affecting model before use. Those examples could support questions about how decisions acquire confidence and whose experience falls outside the account. I would not turn oversight into a review of every analytical method or assume that technical familiarity replaces professional expertise in other fields. In a first appointment, I would need to learn the enterprise's wider responsibilities and the way the board reaches collective decisions. My intended contribution is to make uncertainty and scope easier to understand so directors can assess the commitment being proposed. Clinical suitability, treatment and other specialist judgements would remain with the people qualified and authorised to make them.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Operational data and investment matters presented through the CEO
February 2021 onward
Explains the scope and limits of analytical proposals; board and operating approvals remain with the relevant authorities.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk committee considering data-dependent operating decisions · Technology committee examining analytical investment and use |
I would explore one first outside appointment in an operational-service or data-intensive enterprise whose board wants to examine how evidence supports material commitments. Risk or technology-committee membership might fit after a review of the company's needs and my eligibility; I do not claim readiness to chair either from a CDO title. The twenty-three days available are provisional and must cover reading, induction, meetings, travel and exceptional demands alongside current work. My IICA registration is a preparation step, with the assessment still to complete and no exemption asserted. I would value a chair who helps first-time directors develop collective judgement and a board with complementary expertise. Before accepting, I would want a clear account of the contribution sought, the relationships needing review and the practical conditions under which I could serve the whole enterprise rather than only its analytical agenda.
I approved a report using 884 on-time journeys among 920 completed while eighty unserved bookings were omitted from the headline population. The complete cohort contained one thousand, giving an 88.4% on-time share. I would help a board examine whether a management measure answers the question directors think it answers. The completed-trip calculation could still be useful, but its boundary needed to remain visible. Correcting the account cost ₹34 lakh and did not improve historical punctuality. I would retain both the original approval and that limit, so the reporting correction does not become a claim about a service outcome that the evidence cannot establish.
A booking-time prediction included a completion code created after the journey. We stopped rollout and withdrew the retrospective performance claim, with ₹44 lakh spent. I would ask directors to seek an explanation of what the process could know when the proposed decision was made. Removing an inappropriate input begins a revised evaluation; it does not validate the remaining model or preserve its previous claim. The board can examine that relationship without selecting every technical method. In this example the purpose was operational forecasting, with no authority to determine clinical suitability. The distinction between a persuasive score and a supported use belongs in the investment decision.
A proposed penalty model combined 72 passenger-requested cancellations, thirty provider failures and eighteen administrative duplicates. We stopped it before use and allocated ₹39 lakh to rework. I would help directors ask how records become customer-affecting decisions and whether the category preserves the responsibility being inferred. Removing the obvious errors would still not make every passenger request a justified penalty event. The policy required its own review and the revised data its own evaluation. My contribution would be to clarify that chain, not write every operational rule or assume that a technical output has settled the judgement the enterprise remains responsible for making.
I would start by understanding the enterprise's commitments, operating model, finances and stakeholder relationships before looking for parallels with transport data. During induction I would follow several material management claims from the underlying event through the report to the decision requested of directors. I would listen to the people responsible for operations, finance, technology, legal matters and customer experience, including where their perspectives challenge my initial reading. I would ask the chair whether my interventions clarify the collective judgement or draw the board too far into execution. My first year should broaden my understanding of oversight rather than reproduce my executive role in a new setting. I would expect to revise assumptions as I learned. The practical aim would be to contribute questions that make evidence and its limits intelligible, while respecting the management responsibilities and professional expertise on which the board depends.
I would disclose my employment, 2% holding and relevant relationships through Tazqeshi's founders, regional fund, employee owners, hospital customers, suppliers and advisers before confidential papers were shared. Employer consent and qualified review of the proposed appointment would be necessary, including applicable company-law, listing, independence, committee and directorship requirements. A small percentage holding is not an automatic finding of independence, and a disclosure does not resolve every practical conflict. Passenger-related records, customer agreements and analytical work from my current employment would remain protected. I would assess whether exclusions needed for an overlap would still leave room to contribute usefully to the whole board. That assessment would need revisiting as relationships changed. I would decline a role if recurring restrictions or insufficient time prevented responsible preparation, instead of treating an initial declaration as a permanent answer to every future situation.
My executive employment and 2% of total equity in Tazqeshi require disclosure, together with relationships through its founders, fund, employee owners and hospital customers. A qualified review would determine the implications for a particular appointment; a limited holding does not settle independence.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
The fictional preparation record starts with IICA registration in May 2026. The proficiency assessment remains unfinished, and I claim no exemption. Appointment-specific eligibility and applicable committee or directorship requirements need separate professional review.