Harjit Qevnarzi · Chief Product Officer · India
I could help a board examine what a digital product asks its users to believe and whether management can support that promise. My experience concerns visitor-facing services where interpretation, physical conditions and technology meet. The board does not need to decide an object identifier or approve every reconstruction image. It does need an intelligible account of material product obligations, the people responsible for them and the consequences when the service claims more than it knows. I would bring examples in which the useful response was an extra confirmation, a visibly incomplete state or a narrower answer. That experience should complement, rather than displace, financial, legal, operating and subject expertise around the table. Foundation ownership is also part of my background: a purpose-led service still needs a sound commercial model and clear accountability for its choices. I would want to understand how this particular company balances those responsibilities before assuming that a familiar product analogy supplies the right answer.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Company board; executive product presentations
2020–present
Presented offline-readiness investment, route-information responsibilities and the distinction between reviewed interpretation and illustrative content. These were executive presentations, not service as a director or committee member.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | A product or technology committee where the charter and collective skills make my experience relevant · A risk committee considering customer-facing product claims, subject to applicable composition requirements |
I am considering an initial non-executive contribution in a company where the board wants thoughtful scrutiny of public-facing digital products as part of wider enterprise oversight. A product, technology or risk committee might be appropriate after reviewing its charter, applicable composition rules and the expertise already present. I am not offering to chair a statutory committee or substitute product experience for finance and governance competence. The company should have a clear induction process and a willingness to hear that a narrower promise can be a stronger business decision. My databank position remains not yet registered, and the steps relevant to a particular opportunity would need current review. I would want the appointment process to establish eligibility, independence and capacity on the actual facts. This profile describes an interest and a basis for discussion; it does not present me as already approved for a board seat.
I approved proximity-triggered commentary and then faced a trial in which nine of twenty-four walkthroughs started an explanation for the wrong room. The feature had removed a gesture without establishing the relationship that gesture previously confirmed. I supported ₹31 lakh of work on visitor-confirmed identification and accepted a less impressive automatic demonstration. For a board, the useful judgement is not a preference for manual interaction. It is a willingness to reconsider an approved product promise when the evidence exposes a material assumption. I would ask management how the original decision was tested, what the alternative changes and which claims remain unsupported. I would also retain responsibility for my approval rather than present the correction as though it erased the mistake. Oversight should encourage that candour without turning directors into feature owners.
The route review had five supported accounts and three awaiting venue verification. Publishing all eight with the same reassuring status would have made the guide appear more complete while concealing different evidence. I supported ₹43 lakh for clearer conditions, status and an assistance handoff, keeping the physical venue's responsibility explicit. A board should understand the boundary between describing a condition and controlling it. It should also ask whether management has a credible arrangement for changes after publication. The product work did not constitute legal certification or prove that every visitor could use every route. I would bring that precision to oversight discussions in other services, especially where a digital label can imply authority over a physical experience that the company does not actually operate.
In a first board year I would begin by understanding the company's purpose, ownership, financial model and the decisions its products ask customers to make. Through arrangements agreed with the chair, I would follow a small number of material promises from commercial description to operating responsibility and the handling of later changes. The purpose would be to understand the enterprise, not to create a parallel product-management channel. I would ask other directors to help me see legal, financial and operational consequences outside my own experience. I would also learn how the board distinguishes a useful qualification from an unresolved problem that management needs to address. My provisional eighteen-day capacity would need testing against preparation, committee expectations and periods requiring urgent attention. A successful first year should leave my questions better grounded in the company's actual circumstances and my contribution better integrated with the board's collective judgement, rather than encourage premature certainty based on a handful of familiar visitor-guide examples.
A prospective board role could overlap with venue partners, technology suppliers, content specialists or funders connected to my continuing executive work. I would identify those relationships before accepting and discuss the appropriate response under the relevant governance process. Some decisions may require recusal or other restrictions; some relationships may make the appointment unsuitable. I would not bring confidential research recordings, curatorial material or commercial terms from one organisation into another as proof of expertise. The learning from a decision can inform judgement without making the underlying material mine to reuse. Time also needs explicit treatment. A product incident or important venue launch may coincide with an urgent board demand, and an annual day estimate does not remove that possibility. I would discuss the practical conditions with my employer and a proposed chair, then revisit the arrangement when responsibilities changed rather than assume that an initial declaration settled every later conflict.
I have no equity in Zelqavri and currently hold no statutory directorship. A proposed appointment would still require an assessment of the particular company's relationships and applicable independence requirements. I would disclose relevant commercial, professional, family and other connections and keep that account current. Neither foundation ownership nor a long product career establishes independence by itself. I would discuss eligibility and fit through the company's proper process rather than describe this fictional statement as a completed nomination assessment.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not registered in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank, and claim neither a completed proficiency assessment nor an exemption. My interest in a first board role is preliminary. I would review the current requirements relevant to a particular opportunity before representing myself as ready for its appointment process. No private platform assessment is disclosed.