Miriam Qelvamri · Chief Technology Officer · India

Bring the conditions of capability into the board discussion

My contribution to a board

I can help a board examine the assumptions behind a technical promise. In a virtual-production business, a stage can be described as ready while material dependencies remain in the camera arrangement, scene workload or physical set. The governance contribution is to ask whether those dependencies are understood, funded and represented accurately in customer commitments. It is not to prescribe a lens setting or adjudicate the artistic merit of a shot. I bring experience of making an investment case conditional on evidence and of acknowledging an error in a workflow I approved. That may help directors distinguish a manageable limitation from a claim management cannot yet support. I would work with financial, legal, creative and other expertise on the board rather than treat engineering knowledge as sufficient for every question the company faces. I would also ask how a production exception reaches the people making commercial commitments. An engineer can record a limitation accurately while a proposal or schedule still assumes a broader capability. That gap is an enterprise responsibility, not merely a documentation problem in the technical function. My contribution would be to help the board examine whether management has a coherent account across those decisions and a route for escalating material changes. I would expect to learn from directors with stronger financial, people or legal experience, particularly where a technical alternative changes contractual obligations or the resources needed to deliver the service.

Capacity and preferences

Time available: 18 days per year
Current directorships: 0
Sectors: Creative technical services · Production engineering · Digital-to-physical service enterprises
Company type: A regional private or professionally governed growth enterprise whose customer commitments depend on technical evidence, with an established executive team and a chair who maintains the boundary between oversight and delivery.
Company stage: A company moving from founder-led technical judgement into repeatable enterprise accountability, where investment cases and production promises need clearer evidence without suppressing experimentation.

The seat I am pursuing

I am considering an initial non-executive contribution with a realistic scope, suitable induction and a collective board whose experience complements mine. I am not presenting myself as ready to chair an audit, remuneration or other statutory committee. Any committee participation would depend on the relevant requirements, charter and board assessment. The enterprise should value a candid account of capability and limitations rather than expect a director's technical reputation to endorse its products. I would want the appointment to be justified by the questions I can help the board examine and the time I can responsibly commit, with preparation and independence reviewed before a decision. I would be cautious about an invitation framed primarily around lending a technology credential to fundraising or customer marketing. A director should be able to question the capability statement and request a more complete account without being treated as an obstacle to the commercial story. The fit I seek is a board where that scrutiny is part of the role from the outset. My first contribution would need a manageable scope and a clear induction plan, with room to understand the enterprise before offering conclusions about its technical maturity or investment priorities.

Committee contribution

Chair and member readiness
Capacity	Committees
Ready to join	A technology or risk committee where its charter and the board's skills assessment fit my experience

Judgement in practice

Retaining an owned dimensional error

The 2019 import decision left five of twenty-four reviewed objects with inappropriate dimensions. I funded ₹29 lakh of correction and replacement work and retained my approval in the account. For governance, the relevant issue is whether management explains the use a released asset is expected to support and accepts the cost of repairing an unsupported implication. The board need not inspect every object to ask that question. My example does not claim structural expertise, an accident prevented or a financial saving that was never measured.

Keeping two rendering alternatives in the investment report

The ₹62 lakh optimisation programme made three of five exceptions supportable, leaving twenty-two of twenty-four scenes within the preferred arrangement. The ₹1.6 crore hardware proposal was deferred, not declared permanently unnecessary. A board should be able to see the remaining alternatives and the conditions that would justify returning with a capital request. Reporting only the improved scenes would conceal part of the service requirement. I would ask for the relationship between workload, accepted creative changes and future demand, while leaving the technical implementation with management.

My first year on a board

Before accepting a seat I would seek a grounded understanding of the company, its customers, ownership and existing board responsibilities. During the first year I would listen to how management describes a service commitment and compare that account with the evidence used to approve it. I would work through the chair and agreed board processes when requesting further material. Site or team engagement should clarify the business, not become an instruction channel from a technically experienced director. I would also review the time consumed by preparation and unexpected issues against my provisional eighteen-day estimate. If the commitment proved incompatible with my executive responsibilities, that conflict would need an honest decision rather than optimistic scheduling. Learning the enterprise's financial and governance context would be as important as understanding its technical vocabulary. I would look for a small number of concrete decisions through which to understand the enterprise, rather than arrive with a generic technology transformation agenda. One might concern the release of a scene for physical planning; another might concern a capacity proposal with unresolved exceptions. Following those decisions through the agreed board material would help me understand who owns evidence, who accepts an alternative and how expenditure is authorised. My questions should improve the clarity of collective judgement. They should not turn a board visit into a parallel audit of individual engineers or a promise that my presence validates the production.

Conflicts and their management

My continuing CTO appointment could create conflicts with suppliers, customers, competing production-service enterprises or investments connected to my employer. These relationships would need to be examined for the specific proposed company and monitored after appointment. I would use the required disclosure, recusal and other governance processes rather than assume that abstaining from one discussion resolves every issue. I would not carry confidential scene assets, customer material or internal engineering evidence from my employer into another boardroom. The useful contribution is judgement about how evidence supports decisions, not access to information I am not authorised to share. A proposed seat could also place me near creative assets or commercial plans that resemble work under discussion at my employer. Even without a direct supplier or customer relationship, that proximity would need careful consideration. I would not rely on a personal belief that I could keep the matters separate. The relevant governance process must determine whether the relationship is acceptable and what restrictions are needed, including whether the appointment should proceed at all. The time position deserves the same candour: a nominal day count is insufficient if urgent production responsibilities make preparation or attendance unreliable.

My independence statement

I hold no personal equity in Zevqatri and no statutory directorship. Neither fact settles independence for another company. Any proposed seat would require a current review of relationships, interests and applicable requirements, including family, commercial and professional connections relevant to that enterprise. I would disclose the relevant details for that assessment and update it when circumstances change. A website statement cannot establish eligibility across companies or replace the nomination process, company advice and formal declarations required for an actual appointment.

Board and committee exposure

Presented to the Board or a committee

Zevqatri Virtual Production

Board discussions on technology capability and investment

2021–present

I have explained camera-configuration exceptions, production alternatives and the rendering-capacity proposal in executive presentations. The experience concerns management's account of evidence and cost, including the two scenes kept outside the preferred rendering method. I was present as the responsible technology executive, not as a director, committee member or independent assessor. Directors could question the logic and ask for further work; I remained accountable for the technical programme within my remit.

Governance learning and readiness

IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered

I have not yet registered in the IICA independent-director databank. My preparation includes neither a completed proficiency assessment nor an established exemption. The preparation route would need to be completed as applicable before an appointment proceeds. My technical career and executive presentations are evidence of experience, not substitutes for the formal requirements or a basis for inventing a qualification I do not hold. This demonstration makes no statement about a private platform assessment and publishes no such result.

I am developing my understanding of collective board responsibility, the distinction between executive evidence and independent judgement, and the way a committee works within its approved charter. A director's familiarity with a technical field should improve the questions asked, not create an unofficial reporting line around management.
My preparation includes general independence requirements, conflicts, financial accountability and the applicable governance expectations for the proposed company. For a listed enterprise, relevant committee and directorship limits would require their own current review. I would not infer eligibility or a chair role from this illustrative profile, and I do not offer a universal legal conclusion.