A market plan should show whose decisions it depends on

I would bring a customer perspective into governance by examining the assumptions behind an enterprise's view of its market. That is different from bringing a campaign preference into the boardroom. The relevant questions concern how management understands demand, what evidence supports the proposed investment and which customer actions the plan assumes. My experience of industrial buying groups has made me cautious about treating a coherent supplier presentation as evidence that the people considering the purchase have reached a coherent decision of their own.

At Shenqiao Systems, I have presented marketing and market-development matters to the board in my executive capacity since July 2019. I hold no director appointments. My preparation for a first non-executive role would therefore include learning how to contribute beyond the function I currently lead. I would not describe familiarity with commercial evidence as a qualification to chair an audit committee or replace another specialist's judgement. A board needs a collective view of the enterprise, including issues that are not naturally framed through marketing.

The thirty-two-opportunity review illustrates a question I could bring to that collective discussion. A broad programme of exposure was being considered alongside stalled buying conversations. The selected review found different unresolved issues at the dates examined, changing the recommended response. At board level, I would ask whether the proposed commitment follows from the evidence or from a convenient explanation that has not been tested. The board would examine the recommendation and its material assumptions; management would still own the research, account decisions and execution.

A second contribution concerns the appearance of precision. Our planning workbook allowed customer assumptions to remain unconfirmed rather than insert example values simply to complete a calculation. Three of eight reviewing groups left their initial scenario unfinished. A board investment paper can face a similar problem when a precise total rests on inputs whose basis is uncertain. I would want management to show which assumptions are measured, estimated or dependent on another party, and explain what changes if those assumptions do not hold. That question complements financial expertise rather than substituting for it.

I also pay attention to relationships treated as available capacity. The customer-reference programme made consent, scope and the total demand on participating organisations explicit. Nineteen discussions occurred in the first full quarter, but seven requests were deferred and five declined. A growth plan may rely on partners, customers or professional contributors whose willingness is less controllable than the internal timetable implies. I would ask whether management understands the arrangement and its limits. The board should not respond by directing individual requests; it should understand the dependency before relying on it.

Conflicts would need careful work before any appointment. My employer serves industrial customers and works with agencies, partners and suppliers whose relationships could intersect with a prospective board. I would disclose relevant interests early and seek the required employer consent. An absence of current director seats is not an absence of commercial connections. Information gained through one role should not quietly become an advantage in another, and an appointment that expected access to Shenqiao's customers or confidential material would be unsuitable.

I propose twenty annual days for a compatible first role, but that figure needs to be tested against the real calendar. Preparation, induction and exceptional demands belong in the assessment alongside scheduled meetings. I would seek a chair who wants a member willing to learn the company's economics and question market assumptions, rather than someone expected to deliver a marketing programme outside the executive organisation. Where the need is a defined positioning assignment, a scoped advisory engagement would be the clearer arrangement.

The contribution I want to make is therefore both specific and limited. I can help a board see how its company understands the people who must choose its offer, and whether the evidence supports the confidence of the plan. I would also need to listen, prepare across the wider business and accept that another director may frame the decisive question better. A credible first appointment should recognise that combination of relevant experience and further responsibility, without turning a professional profile into an assertion of eligibility for a role whose circumstances have not yet been examined.