Aparna Vardekar · Chief Operating Officer · India

I would question the operating claim before accepting its presentation.

My contribution to a board

I would bring experience of the gap that can open between a maintenance completion account and the operating responsibility it leaves behind. A board sees dates, expense, availability and management’s explanation of variances. Those measures are necessary, but I would ask which technical finding changed the work, what authority supported the resulting decision and what later evidence is available. The purpose would be to improve scrutiny, not to move a station’s operating decisions into the boardroom.

My experience would be most useful alongside financial, legal, technical and commercial expertise rather than as a substitute for it. I have had to retain additional expense when the reason for it was defensible, and acknowledge a support reduction whose assumptions were inadequate. That combination could help me question both an overly comfortable success account and an overly simple response to a variance. I would want management to explain the choice, the alternative and the uncertainty that remains.

The generation-boundary case also informs the contribution I would hope to make. A large output figure can be accurate while being unsuitable for the conclusion attached to it. I would ask whether the board is comparing like quantities and periods before relying on an apparent improvement. My role would be to insist on a comprehensible account and access to suitable expertise, not to present myself as an independent certifier of a plant’s technical or financial performance.

Capacity and preferences

Time available: 20 days per year
Current directorships: 0
Sectors: Power generation · Industrial businesses with material maintenance and operating dependencies
Company type: An established Indian private or listed business with clear executive, technical and board responsibilities
Company stage: A company examining the consistency of its maintenance commitments and operating evidence

The seat I am pursuing

I would consider a first non-executive role where maintenance commitments and operating evidence materially affect the board’s decisions. An established generating or industrial company could be relevant if the chair wanted practical scrutiny that complements the board’s existing expertise. I have no statutory directorships and do not claim readiness to chair audit, risk or another committee. Membership of an operations or asset committee could be appropriate only where such a committee exists, its remit fits and the institution supports the appointment.

The opportunity would need a genuine transition from executive explanation to collective oversight. I would want a chair who values a carefully framed question without expecting me to become a shadow COO. Eligibility, independence, required registration, preparation and conflicts would all need their own assessment under the applicable framework. Every employer and outcome on this demonstration site is invented. A real candidate should replace the example with verified experience and accurate current status before using it in a nomination process.

Committee contribution

Chair and member readiness
Capacity	Committees
Ready to join	A board operations or asset committee where constituted and relevant to the proposed remit

Judgement in practice

A justified extension still required a candid variance explanation

The 2023 unit outage moved from 28 to 33 days after an inspection-led scope change. The maintenance account rose from ₹42 Cr to ₹50.4 Cr, with the additional ₹8.4 Cr disclosed separately from forgone generation and revenue. I would use that experience to ask management how a changed scope was assessed, who held the technical authority and how the financial consequences were presented. A defensible decision does not remove the need to examine the original assumption. Equally, a missed date does not by itself establish that the later technical judgement was wrong. A board needs enough evidence to hold both questions open without pressuring management to make one measure look better at the expense of a properly supported decision.

Possession did not establish application suitability

Our review of twelve spare assemblies found nine compatible with the intended applications and three requiring modification or replacement. I supported ₹1.6 Cr verification and rework expense while retaining engineering ownership of the finding. In oversight I would ask whether a preparedness statement describes material held, suitability confirmed or work that can actually proceed. Those are related but distinct assertions. I would also ask how the unresolved three applications remain visible in the programme and whether the expenditure account has mixed stock value with review cost. The board’s contribution is to scrutinise the assurance and its limits, not to approve a component through the confidence of an operating executive.

The original saving proposal needed an admission, not a new label

I supported a ₹48 lakh annual support reduction and later had to explain ₹39 lakh additional callout and standby over four months. A colleague had warned that the attendance pattern was insufficiently represented. I would want a board to recognise when management is making a substantive correction and to ask whether the original dissent is now understood. The two financial periods cannot be subtracted into a reliable net benefit. Nor should the corrective expense be quietly presented as if it had been intended all along. This example would help me question an account that preserves a saving narrative by changing its scope after the event, while leaving management responsible for designing and implementing the revised service arrangement.

My first year on a board

My first year would begin with the actual company rather than assumptions carried over from my current fleet. I would study its governance documents, board calendar, delegated authorities, operating portfolio and the sources of technical assurance it relies on. I would ask the chair how site visits and management discussions should be organised so that learning does not create a parallel chain of instruction. A visit should improve my understanding of a decision and its evidence, not invite a station team to treat a director’s informal question as an operating command.

I would read the maintenance and performance reports before proposing changes to them. Where a measure appears unfamiliar, I would first establish its purpose, period and boundary. I would also need induction in the company’s financial reporting and the legal requirements relevant to the proposed role. Twenty days a year is an initial planning allowance, conditional on employer agreement and the full demands of meetings, preparation, induction and exceptional events. I would review that allowance rather than present it as a promise that every appointment can fit the same calendar.

Conflicts and their management

My current work involves generating assets, suppliers, contractors and investor relationships that may overlap with another company’s interests. I would disclose relevant connections before receiving restricted information, and seek a formal assessment of whether an appointment is appropriate. A different station location would not by itself remove a commercial conflict. I would not bring private supplier terms, unpublished technical findings or confidential operating records into another company’s board discussion.

If an identified conflict required restricted access, recusal or a decision not to proceed, I would follow the agreed process and revisit the position as circumstances changed. I would also distinguish a board opportunity from a route to commercial work for my employer or professional contacts. The contribution I could offer comes from judgement developed through experience; it does not entitle me to transfer the confidential evidence behind that experience. Clear boundaries would matter both to the appointing institution and to colleagues in my current organisation.

My independence statement

An appointment would require the appropriate institution-specific eligibility and independence assessment. My current employer, investor connections, suppliers, personal interests and other relationships would need disclosure and review. I do not claim that an executive title or a public profile establishes independence.

Board and committee exposure

Presented to the Board or a committee

Varnedra Energy

Board

January 2020 — present

I present fleet maintenance decisions, non-fuel operating expense and the qualifications behind selected performance measures. These are executive presentations; I have never held a statutory director appointment.

Governance learning and readiness

IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered

My registration in the Indian independent-director databank has not yet been completed. I would establish the applicable preparation and assessment requirements before an actual appointment, without inferring an exemption from engineering or operating experience.

My preparation would include the Companies Act framework and the institution’s actual governance documents; a listed-company opportunity would also require current SEBI LODR requirements to be understood with appropriate advice.
I would verify the applicable IICA databank and proficiency requirements, rather than treating this fictional profile as evidence of registration or eligibility.
I need to develop the transition from explaining a maintenance recommendation to examining management’s assumptions as one member of a board.