Benedict Qevthuri · Chief Strategy Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy committee examining the operating scope of investments · Risk committee considering commercial obligations and capability dependencies |
I am interested in one first outside appointment in a specialist equipment or business-service enterprise considering its network, operating scope or funding model. Strategy or risk-committee membership might be appropriate after the company assesses its needs and requirements; I do not claim chair readiness from executive experience or an assessment pass. Twenty-four days is provisional and must include induction, reading, meetings, travel and exceptional demands alongside my present responsibilities. I would value an experienced chair and complementary expertise that helps me develop collective judgement beyond my familiar planning work. The fictional March registration and September proficiency-assessment pass are preparation facts, not a universal statement of eligibility. The role should have a clear purpose and practical conditions I can meet, with commercial relationships and workload understood before an appointment is accepted rather than left for later resolution.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Network, acquisition and funding proposals presented through the CEO
February 2021 onward
Develops strategic comparisons with operating, technical and finance colleagues; approval remains with the board and authorised decision makers.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Proficiency assessment passed
The fictional record includes IICA registration in March 2026 and a proficiency-assessment pass in September 2026, with no exemption claimed. The receiving company must separately review appointment eligibility, independence and applicable committee or directorship requirements.
I would help a board examine the operating business that a proposal creates after approval. A workshop needs a supportable pattern of work, an acquisition may depend on permissions that are not yet confirmed, and a funding round changes ownership as well as cash. My experience includes an unsuccessful expansion and later decisions that narrowed scope rather than make the headline larger. I would bring questions about assumptions, obligations and the authority of the people making the commitment. I would not prescribe repairs, determine clinical use or treat a strategic comparison as a substitute for qualified technical and legal assessment. Having presented proposals without holding a statutory seat, I would need to learn the receiving enterprise and collective oversight in greater breadth. My intended value is to make the choice more intelligible for directors while keeping execution and specialist decisions with their proper owners.
I supported a location expecting 250 monthly jobs; its first six months averaged ninety. It closed after eighteen months with ₹62 lakh of startup cost unrecovered and customer-agreed transfers of responsibility. I would ask a board how a volume estimate becomes an operating model and which evidence would lead management to revisit the commitment. The later transition was necessary but did not make the expansion successful. The question should include the sponsor's assumptions as well as execution, so an operating team is not left solely responsible for making an insufficiently examined forecast true. The case asserts no clinical outcome or abandonment of customer obligations.
In a proposed ₹32 crore workshop purchase, eighteen of 26 reviewed service permissions required fresh consent under the particular agreements and eight were transferable. We declined with ₹74 lakh of diligence cost retained. I would help directors understand what that position meant for the business after completion, without turning it into a general legal rule. A price concession would not itself create consent, and the money already spent would not make the uncertainty disappear. The useful oversight question is whether the proposed enterprise is supportable on the evidence available, with qualified advisers responsible for assessing the actual contractual and technical position.
The board chose ₹12 crore of primary equity for 40% over a separate ₹27 crore full-acquisition proposal. The cash recipient, purpose and ownership outcome differed. Planned proceeds of ₹3.6 crore for parts, ₹3.4 crore for tools and ₹5 crore for working capital totalled twelve, but were not reported earnings or completed expenditure. I would help a board compare the future enterprise each proposal creates and retain what the selected path gives up. A transaction can complete while much of its intended operating value remains to be delivered. The account should preserve those states rather than turn funding into an achieved performance result.
I would begin by learning the enterprise's obligations to customers, employees, owners and other stakeholders, together with the financial and sector conditions that shape its choices. Through an agreed induction, I would follow several important proposals from their operating assumptions to the decision directors are asked to make. I would listen to technical, legal, finance and people leaders before relying on an analogy from my service-network experience. I would ask the chair for feedback on whether my questions clarified the collective choice or drifted too far into execution. My first year should broaden judgement beyond evaluating growth proposals and help me understand the continuing responsibilities that follow approval. I would expect to revise some initial views as I learned the business. A useful contribution would make assumptions and obligations easier for the board to assess while respecting the authority of management and the expertise of the colleagues responsible for specialist decisions.
Before receiving confidential papers, I would disclose my employment and relevant relationships through Tevqoshi's founder family, investor, hospital customers, suppliers, service partners and advisers. I would obtain employer consent and seek qualified review of independence, eligibility and the company-law or listing obligations applicable to the proposed role, including relevant committee and directorship limits. No direct shareholding does not mean there are no conflicts to examine. Customer agreements, technical records and commercial terms from my current work would remain protected. Any exclusions needed to manage an overlap must still leave room for a useful contribution to the whole board. The review would continue if relationships or responsibilities changed. I would decline an appointment where recurring restrictions, insufficient preparation or limited availability made the proposed contribution impractical, instead of assuming that disclosure alone solved the issue or that a senior executive title established suitability.
I hold no direct shares and no statutory appointment. My executive role and relationships through Tevqoshi's owners, customers, suppliers and service partners would still require qualified review for a proposed outside role. Absence of a personal holding is not a conclusion about independence.