Presented to the Board or a committee
Yoritsune Mobility
Board investment discussions
April 2021–present
Presented engineering recommendations on sorter adoption, depot charging and maintenance capability as an executive; no director appointment.
Harunori Mitsuse · Chief Technology Officer · Japan
Bring the organisation behind the equipment into the board discussion
Committee contribution
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technology and investment committee, if constituted · Operational risk committee, subject to its remit and induction |
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Logistics and distribution · Equipment-dependent business services · Industrial service networks
- Company type
- Privately owned or investor-backed operator with a clear separation between board oversight and executive engineering
- Company stage
- Preparing a material equipment investment or strengthening capability after initial expansion
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in a first seat at an operator whose service depends on physical systems and whose board wants a thoughtful challenge to its investment assumptions. Logistics, distribution and industrial service networks are the closest fit. I propose twenty annual days, subject to consent and the real calendar, including induction and exceptional meetings. I am not offering immediate committee-chair readiness. I would consider joining a relevant committee after understanding its remit and the knowledge already available, with the aim of contributing to collective judgement rather than becoming the board's substitute engineering manager.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
My IICA Independent Directors' Databank status is not yet registered. Any possible Indian appointment would require its own applicable eligibility and process review; my Japanese executive record does not establish those conditions.
- Internal workshops on board investment papers and the limits of executive presentation experience
- Case-based study of operational risk, financial oversight and conflicts with external advisers; no professional qualification claimed
My contribution to a board
I would bring a practical view of the organisation behind an equipment investment. My career has moved from supplier commissioning into depot management, automation and the CTO role. That gives me a basis for asking what an installation expects from operators, technicians and the rest of the service after its project team leaves. I can help a board distinguish a component's performance from the capability the company needs to use it over time.
That contribution would be one part of collective oversight. I have presented to the Yoritsune board since April 2021 but have never served as a director. I would need to learn the prospective company's financial position, strategy, stakeholders and governance arrangements before deciding where my experience is most useful. I would not treat technical familiarity as authority over every investment question or seek to direct the engineering team through a committee. My role would be to ask whether management's proposal has a coherent operating basis and whether the board can see the obligations it accepts.
Board and committee exposure
Judgement in practice
A useful sorter improvement that did not meet the investment assumption
The sorter programme increased observed accepted work across the examined shifts, yet remained below the rate assumed in the proposal. I recommended a two-site learning stage instead of the planned four-site release and retained an irregular-parcel station. That accepted a less convenient purchasing arrangement and kept staffing in the account. In a board setting, I would use the experience to question whether a recommendation acknowledges the work outside the preferred equipment flow. I would ask management to explain the comparison's scope, the next decision and the resources required to learn more. The board should not redesign the line; it should understand why the evidence supports the commitment being requested and what would cause that recommendation to change.
A completed service with a reserve requirement still inside it
All 126 duties in the winter van trial were completed, but fourteen used a substitute vehicle because the original assignment lacked sufficient charging time. I kept that distinction in the recommendation and supported delaying the larger purchase. The customer outcome was real, and so was its dependence on reserve capacity. For a board, the relevant question is whether the ordinary operating plan includes the resources that made the trial possible. I would ask how the proposal handles variation in return times, what management has examined and which decisions still depend on specialist work. I would avoid claiming that a successful trial settles annual economics or wider adoption before that separate evidence is available.
A learning gap that belonged to the project as well as the technicians
The maintenance exercise found that sixteen of thirty-six participants needed prompting on a selected diagnostic task. I funded additional practice and revised material instead of treating course attendance as a completed capability obligation. That delayed the next introduction and acknowledged a weakness in our original preparation. My board contribution would be to ask whether the receiving organisation appears in the investment case with an owner, resources and meaningful evidence. I would not use one exercise to label people or claim comprehensive readiness. The judgement concerns whether the enterprise has prepared for the responsibility it is taking on, with the cost of that preparation included before expansion becomes difficult to reconsider.
My first year on a board
My first year would begin with the company's service model and capital commitments. I would read the financial and operating account with the relevant executives, identify the largest physical dependencies and understand how investment decisions reach the board. Site visits would be arranged through management, with attention to the work around equipment as well as the equipment itself. I would listen to the questions operators and maintenance teams believe the investment papers miss.
I would then work with the chair to decide where I could add value without creating a parallel management channel. I would want to understand capital authorisation, forecast assumptions, liquidity constraints and how financial benefits are verified after approval. A technology committee, where appropriate, should connect those questions to the wider board account. I would review my contribution and learning needs with the chair rather than assume that my executive experience made every aspect of the appointment familiar.
Conflicts and their management
Yoritsune's relationships with equipment suppliers, logistics customers and service partners would require careful disclosure. A prospective company might use the same supplier or compete for the same customer, creating questions that cannot be settled by a general independence statement. I would provide the relevant relationship information, seek employer consent and follow the company's process for assessing and managing conflicts. If the position could not be handled credibly, I would decline the appointment.
I would also keep advisory work distinct from director responsibility. A request to examine an installation in detail might be better served by an appropriately scoped specialist engagement. Confidential project material would not be carried between organisations, and I would not use a board role to favour suppliers familiar from my executive career.
My independence statement
I have not concluded that I would be independent of any prospective company. I would disclose my employment, supplier and customer relationships, advisory work and financial interests for the appointment-specific review. Consent and an acceptable time commitment would be prerequisites to proceeding.