Karthik Mehta · Chief Product Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | A technology or customer committee where enterprise-product judgement fits the mandate after preparation and assessment |
I would consider a first appointment in an enterprise-software or related-services business that wants a stronger understanding of the product commitments shaping its future work. The fit would depend on the company’s stage, customer relationships and existing board skills. A technology or customer committee might be relevant after preparation, but that possibility is subject to assessment of the actual mandate rather than a position I can assign myself.
I would bring a career that progressed from understanding requirements to declining promises a shared product could not usefully absorb. The record includes an owned interaction error, a bounded offline offer and incomplete customer activation. A nomination reader should question both the applicability of those product decisions and the evidence they do not provide. The intended contribution is a disciplined part in collective judgement, with suitability, independence and appointment left to the company’s proper process.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Executive presentations on shared-roadmap choices and product capability boundaries
July 2019 — present
Presented product commitments, pilot outcomes and remaining conditions as CPO; no statutory-director or committee appointment in this fictional record.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered in India’s Independent Directors’ Databank in this fictional account and claim no exemption. Eligibility, registration and preparation for an intended appointment would require review under the applicable requirements.
I would help a software board examine what its product commitments require beyond the immediate announcement or agreement. An exclusive workflow can occupy common teams and create a separate support obligation. An offline label can imply more functionality than the product has assessed. An assisted output can move into a consequential action before its contextual limits have been understood. My contribution would be to ask how the intended promise relates to the evidence and continuing work needed to carry it.
The perspective comes from a specific executive remit. At Mervanith I lead 188 product colleagues through seven direct reports with ₹62 crore delegated FY 2026–27 expense. Engineering, service operations, sales, security, finance and legal responsibilities remain separately owned. I would bring experience of product choices made with those colleagues, not a claim that the product function can determine each specialist conclusion. Company revenue and employment give scale around the role without turning them into personal authority.
My board exposure has been executive presentation from the CPO appointment in July 2019. I have not held a statutory seat in the fictional chronology. A first appointment would require preparation for collective responsibilities and the institution’s circumstances. I would want the board to understand both the relevance and limits of my judgement. The keyboard-operation mistake would remain part of that account, because a product leader should be willing to explain a capability removed through their own preference as carefully as they question another team’s proposed promise.
The proposed ₹18 crore workflow would have occupied three shared teams for fourteen months. I supported a configurable common module rather than the exclusive branch, with ₹8.4 crore product work and four of six pilot clients adopting. Two declined. The proposal was not earned revenue, and the selected expenditure did not establish a profit or savings result.
For a board, I would ask whether the decision account includes the continuing product and support consequences as well as the value of the next agreement. A customer-specific project can be appropriate in some circumstances; the case is not a universal rule against it. The judgement was to make the shared-roadmap trade-off explicit and accept a narrower fit. Engineering, commercial and legal owners still needed to assess their respective implications before the company could make or reject a commitment responsibly.
The 2021 evaluation found wrong context in 180 of 1500 machine-assisted status suggestions. I declined automatic publication and retained drafts with source context and human review. This was a prototype account, not a history of autonomous changes already sent to customers. The response did not claim that adding a reviewer eliminated every error or made the capability universally suitable.
The boardroom question would concern the consequence attached to the output and the evidence supporting that level of action. I would ask management to explain the limits, the proposed responsibility and the further evaluation required. Directors should not operate the review process themselves. They should be able to understand a material product promise without mistaking a fluent or convenient demonstration for evidence that the system can act appropriately in every context it will encounter.
Before accepting a first seat I would learn the company’s ownership, governance arrangements, reserved decisions and applicable director responsibilities with appropriate support. My executive product experience does not settle eligibility or remove the need for preparation. I have not registered in the databank in this invented record and assert no exemption. Any intended appointment would require its own review of the relevant requirements, alongside induction into the company’s business and reporting processes.
In early board material I would look for the connection between major product commitments and the evidence used to approve them. I would ask how exceptions are assessed, which pilot results remain bounded and how unresolved customer or operating conditions are kept visible. The questions should follow the chair and established management channels. I would not direct a parallel roadmap process or use the board role to bypass engineering and service leadership.
I would seek feedback on whether my product questions improve the collective decision. A familiar concern can be technically valid but immaterial in a different company, while an unfamiliar dependency may be decisive. The first year should develop that judgement rather than reproduce Mervanith’s practices. Committee participation would depend on its mandate, the board’s existing capabilities and preparation. I make no claim that the CPO title by itself establishes readiness to chair technology, risk, audit or another specialist committee.
I would disclose current employment, relevant enterprise customers, suppliers, investor connections, prior work and ownership interests before the intended company’s assessment. A willingness to exercise independent judgement cannot determine independence on my own behalf. I would also clarify what product and customer evidence can be discussed, keeping source code, restricted proposals and operating records outside public copy or an unauthorised selection exchange.
Twenty-four days a year would be a provisional indication. Employer agreement, induction, committee work, travel and exceptional activity must be considered against the actual role. I would revisit the estimate if its demands changed. The fictional website is not a completed appointment process or permission to disclose employer material. A real discussion needs verified experience, accurate relationships and an authorised route for further evidence, rather than an assumption that the clarity of a public narrative has already satisfied those conditions.
Independence has not been determined. My employment, customer, supplier, investor and personal relationships would need disclosure and assessment for the particular proposed company.