Leena Qeravzari · Chief Information Officer · India
I could help a board ask what a technology result permits the enterprise to say or do. A catalogue grouping can imply sameness, a successful reservation can appear to establish a customer claim and a restored application can look like a completed business recovery. Each requires an account of meaning and responsibility beyond the technical event. Directors should understand how management connects that event with the physical or commercial undertaking, without deciding individual stock allocations or prescribing application architecture from the boardroom.
The catalogue grouping I approved is a useful limitation to bring into that conversation. I accepted a more convenient representation before the materials owners had established the similarities it implied. Correcting it required expense and additional preparation. That experience makes me attentive to an approval paper whose clean measure omits a consequence for the receiving business. It does not make me the qualified judge of every physical difference. My contribution would be to ask who can establish the fact, how its limits survive in the record and what work remains before management treats the programme as complete.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Enterprise technology and commercial-systems review through the CEO
May 2021–present
Presented reservation, publishing and recovery recommendations through Arun. This is management exposure without statutory membership or committee chairmanship.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Catalogue correction account through the then CEO
2018
Explained the grouping assumption I approved, the selected review and ₹28 lakh correction. Presenting the account did not appoint me as a director or give technology material-certification authority.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technology and enterprise-risk oversight within an appropriate remit · Commercial information and operational resilience oversight where relevant |
I would consider a first board role where information decisions have material consequences for physical assets or commercial commitments. A reuse, property-service or related enterprise might benefit from the questions developed here if its actual capability need matches the experience. I am not offering immediate committee chairmanship, technical certification of materials or an automatic answer to every digital question. The cases demonstrate a particular discipline around meaning, accountability and the limits of an acceptance measure, including an assumption I initially approved and later corrected.
Before accepting, I would need the relevant preparation and company-specific eligibility, independence and relationship reviews. I would want the chair's expectations about collective judgement and management boundaries to be clear. The transition from a technology executive to a director deserves its own assessment rather than being inferred from seniority. A useful appointment would allow me to help the board understand what management's information account establishes, while respecting the qualified and executive owners who must act on it. This fictional readiness statement supports that conversation; it does not establish that the work required for an actual appointment is already complete.
The writing pilot produced ninety-four acceptable drafts, thirty-two with unsupported performance language and twenty-four omitting limitations. I would ask directors to examine the commercial claim the output makes, the review still required and the recurring expense of that responsibility. The pilot supported a bounded drafting use, without automatic publication or an invented staffing reduction. The board can question those economics and accountability arrangements while leaving the particular material assessment and description approval with qualified owners. The existence of fluent output is relevant evidence about a capability, but it is not evidence of every factual promise the company might make through it.
The recovery rehearsal included 180 stock-movement events, with 164 reconciled and 16 held for investigation. I would ask how management distinguishes technical availability from a business position on which the company can rely. The exercise was not a production outage or a universal recovery-time proof. Yard and finance owners needed to participate in acceptance, and their work belonged in the preparation expense. Directors should understand that dependency and any material unresolved consequence. They should not infer misconduct from an ambiguous event or direct individual reconciliation from a high-level report that lacks the relevant professional and operating evidence.
I would begin with the enterprise's physical and commercial model, using an induction agreed with the chair and management. What is being sold or promised, which assets are finite, and whose judgement establishes the facts represented in the systems? A familiar technology description can conceal very different obligations. I would want to understand those obligations before assuming that a practice from material reuse belongs in another company's environment.
I would examine a small number of substantial technology decisions through their original purpose, approval and later account. The review should retain the business owner, the cost of unfinished work and the limits of the claimed result. Appropriate conversations with operating teams would need agreed channels and protection of confidential customer or supplier material. I would ask the chair whether my questions improve the collective understanding without creating an alternative implementation manager. The first year should develop knowledge of this enterprise and its responsibilities, including its financial account, rather than become a sequence of technology recommendations chosen because they are familiar from my executive career.
My current role involves technology suppliers, recovery partners, buyers, investors, materials professionals and advisers around the company's commercial work. An outside enterprise could share a supplier, seek a competing recovery assignment or hold a relationship that matters despite operating under a different industry label. I would disclose the relevant facts and personal connections for appropriate assessment. Some circumstances might require restricted participation; others could make the appointment unsuitable. Having no personal shares does not remove that examination, and disclosure alone should not be treated as a complete answer to every conflict.
Time also needs a practical account. Twenty days is an initial annual estimate, not a universal commitment independent of the role. Reading, induction and travel must be included, and an exceptional event may create demands beyond a normal meeting schedule. Employer permissions and the responsibilities of the current CIO appointment need consideration alongside the prospective board work. The preparation still unfinished is part of that discussion. I would prefer to identify an unsuitable fit before appointment rather than rely on the assumption that experience makes additional responsibilities easy to absorb whenever an attractive opportunity appears.
I remain an executive of Taqzovri, hold no personal equity and have no statutory directorship. My continuing employment prevents me from presenting myself as independent of Taqzovri. A proposed outside appointment would require assessment of relevant Companies Act criteria, including section 149(6), and applicable SEBI LODR requirements. Employment, investor, customer, supplier, adviser and personal relationships need examination for the actual company. Committee composition and directorship limits also require the appropriate review. Neither the absence of shares nor a technology title establishes eligibility, independence or competence for every possible committee role.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
The fictional preparation record has no IICA Independent Directors' Databank registration yet. Proficiency-assessment preparation is unfinished, and no pass or exemption is asserted. Current appointment requirements and supporting evidence must be checked for an actual opportunity.