My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine the dependence between an enterprise's internal technology and the commitments made by its operating leaders. My experience is in making that dependence visible: a staffing record that does not yet establish authority, a common environment whose scope excludes some client projects, or a cost allocation whose precision exceeds its evidence. I would bring questions about responsibility, scope and measurement rather than a preference for a particular product.
My current exposure is through executive presentations to Rujantra Systems' board investment and risk discussions. I have done that as CIO since September 2019, but have not served as a director or held a committee seat. A board appointment would therefore require a deliberate change in how I contribute. I would need to assess management's explanation collectively with fellow directors, rather than take ownership of the programme or ask the technology team to implement my preferred solution. I am interested in that responsibility while recognising that a long executive career does not supply every skill it requires.
Judgement in practice
01Recognising the boundary of a technology approval
The common-environment programme initially appeared to cover 180 client projects. Fifty-four had restrictions that the internal technology function could not remove on its own authority. I supported a narrower 126-project cohort and retained the higher first-year cost in the proposal. The board-level question I take from that decision is whether management has identified the authority on which a promised benefit depends. Directors should not need to decide an environment configuration, but they should be able to see whether the investment assumes a change in customer conditions that nobody has yet secured. I would also ask whether the remaining exceptions are supported and periodically examined, rather than treated as either permanent entitlements or inconvenient omissions from the presentation.
02Keeping a study separate from a staffing commitment
The developer-assistant pilot reduced reported drafting time while increasing review and rework. I supported restricted continuation and declined to turn the first-draft figure into an annual staffing equivalent. That experience would help me question an investment case whose operating benefit depends on several untested steps. I would ask what was observed, what management proposes to do next and who owns the decision about any released time. I would also preserve the possibility that a modest benefit is worthwhile. Oversight should not force management into an exaggerated promise merely because a useful improvement does not resemble a dramatic cost reduction. The evidence and the intended operating use need to be examined together.
03Disclosing uncertainty in the account of shared costs
I published ₹1.8 crore of an ₹18 crore shared compute and tooling pool as unclassified instead of letting an allocation formula appear to be direct observation. Better records later supported assigning ₹1.1 crore of that amount, while ₹0.7 crore remained shared pending evidence. No saving followed merely from the change in attribution. The governance lesson is about the quality of a management explanation. A board needs to know when a number is observed, estimated or allocated by convention, particularly if it informs a major decision. I would bring that attention to technology economics while relying on finance colleagues and fellow directors for the wider accounting and commercial judgement.
My first year on a board
In a first year I would begin with the enterprise's operating commitments and the systems on which they depend. I would ask management to describe the most consequential services, the people accountable for them and the conditions that could make a reported result misleading. I would read prior investment decisions and examine a small number of completed programmes with the relevant executives. My purpose would be to understand how the board receives evidence and how disagreement is preserved, rather than introduce a new reporting format before knowing the business.
I would give particular attention to the difference between a technical completion and an operating outcome. An account migration may be complete while permissions remain under review; a faster task may not yet create usable capacity. I would also learn how the company identifies customer and supplier restrictions that affect its choices. After that initial work, I would discuss with the chair where my experience is useful and where another director or specialist should lead. I would expect a formal induction and continuing learning in financial, legal and sector matters beyond my executive remit.
Conflicts and their management
My employer provides technology services, so a possible external seat requires more than checking the company's name against a short competitor list. I would examine current and prospective customers, suppliers, investment relationships and engagements in which my executive role could influence a commercial decision. Confidential information from either organisation could also make an otherwise attractive appointment inappropriate. I would disclose relevant connections through the formal process and seek advice where the position is unclear.
I have twenty-four days annually available for ordinary preparation and meetings, subject to employer consent and agreement about unusual demands. That is an estimate of capacity, not a promise that every proposed calendar will fit. I would discuss committee work, site visits, induction and crisis availability before accepting. I hold no current directorships and have not registered in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank. The requirements for a particular appointment, including eligibility and independence, would need their own assessment; I would not use the website or an executive reference as a substitute.
My independence statement
My executive employment and the company's customer, supplier and investor relationships would need examination for any proposed appointment; I make no general claim of independence.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have yet to complete registration in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank. This page does not establish eligibility for a particular appointment or any exemption.
- Formal director responsibilities and the distinction between oversight and management
- Financial statements and committee practice beyond my executive technology remit
- Appointment-specific eligibility, independence and conflict assessment with appropriate professional support
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Technology committee · Risk committee alongside complementary financial and sector expertise |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Rujantra Systems
Board investment and risk discussions concerning internal technology
September 2019–present
Presenting executive proposals and service evidence; not a director or board committee member.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Business services outside current commercial conflicts · Established enterprises with substantial shared technology dependence · Privately held companies formalising investment oversight
- Company type
- An established Indian private company with a clear governance mandate and capacity for constructive challenge
- Company stage
- Expansion or operating consolidation where shared-service dependence deserves closer oversight
The seat I am pursuing
I am most interested in a technology or risk committee contribution at an established services enterprise with a clear mandate for independent challenge. I would not currently propose to chair an audit committee or describe myself as an experienced board chair. My preferred starting contribution would be to improve the questions asked about technology dependence, investment evidence and operating responsibility while learning the company's wider governance context. I would decline an appointment whose commercial relationships, required time or expected role made that contribution difficult to perform responsibly.