Fariha Zeshvani · Chief Operating Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk committee examining industrial operating assumptions, subject to eligibility and company needs · Strategy or investment committee where practical manufacturing experience fits the remit |
I would explore one initial outside appointment in an industrial or engineering enterprise whose board needs a clearer connection between capacity, customer commitments and operating risk. A risk, strategy or investment committee could be relevant after its remit and the applicable eligibility requirements were examined; I do not claim committee-chair readiness. My fictional IICA preparation has not yet reached registration, and no assessment pass or exemption should be inferred. Twenty-three days is a provisional estimate that must cover the whole commitment, including induction and exceptional demands. I would need employer consent, relationship review and a clear understanding of what the chair expects between meetings. The opportunity should support learning beyond my operating speciality while allowing me to contribute a practical question: whether the conditions behind a reassuring production statement remain true when the enterprise acts on it.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Operating and investment proposals presented through the CEO
February 2021 onward
Provides the production context for enterprise decisions; presentation is not represented as director or committee service.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
This fictional candidate has not yet registered with the IICA databank and claims neither a completed proficiency assessment nor an exemption. Preparation and the requirements of any proposed appointment remain to be assessed before proceeding.
I would help a board examine whether an operating claim still describes the conditions required for its intended use. My experience includes a dispatch plan I supported that overlooked continuous length, a capacity proposal whose area promise depended on product weight and a pooled spare arrangement that covered fewer machines than its summary implied. Those cases help me ask what a figure includes and which condition has been lost between functions. I would bring that attention into collective judgement while learning the enterprise beyond production. The board should not become an alternative scheduling or quality-release team. It should be able to understand the basis of a material commitment, the uncertainty management retains and the evidence still needed. Complementary technical, financial and commercial expertise would be essential to that discussion, particularly where my own experience does not establish the answer.
I supported a 32-roll dispatch group in which eight rolls could not meet the agreed continuous-length requirement because of joins. Rework cost ₹41 lakh. I would use that experience to question whether management's completion measure corresponds to the promise the enterprise made. The board should not select a rework method, but it can require a clear account of the missed condition, its consequence and the responsibility for correcting it. I would explain that I had backed the plan, so directors could examine my responsibility alongside the later correction. A revised delivery account does not recover the cost or justify presenting the earlier plan as sound.
At an assumed 600 kilograms per hour, products weighing 400 and 800 grams per square metre imply gross area rates of 1,500 and 750 square metres per hour. Those calculations precede trim, downtime and acceptance. We deferred an ₹11.4 crore line proposal and funded a ₹92 lakh operating trial and planning programme. I would ask directors to examine the units and assumptions connecting demand to capacity, while leaving actual technical performance assessment with specialists. The programme's approval is not a result, and deferring the line is not a saving equal to its proposed price.
A pooled spare motor supported four machines in a six-machine group; two needed different interfaces. We approved a ₹1.2 crore specific-spares programme to address the uncovered requirements. I would ask how management establishes the actual coverage of a mitigation and what recovery conditions remain after stock is acquired. More inventory does not by itself prove immediate recovery or eliminate maintenance risk. The board can examine that account without deciding which component an engineer should install or taking over the specialist authority needed for safe return to service.
My first year would begin with the receiving enterprise's products, customers, economics and responsibilities rather than a list of familiar factory improvements. I would follow selected investment and operating decisions from the original assumptions through approval and subsequent reporting. The purpose would be to understand how the board learns when a condition changes, a programme remains unfinished or a measure no longer describes the promise it is meant to assess. I would listen to commercial, finance, people and technical colleagues, and ask the chair whether my questions help collective judgement without drifting into execution. Induction would also need to address areas where my experience is limited. A useful first year should broaden my understanding of the whole enterprise and establish a reliable preparation discipline, rather than make me the director who repeats one operating lesson regardless of the question being discussed.
Before receiving confidential outside-board material, I would disclose my executive role and the relevant relationships involving Vazqeshi's owners, investor, customers, suppliers and industrial partners. Qualified review would need to address the actual appointment, independence and committee or directorship requirements. Protected production methods, customer conditions and quality records would remain with their proper owners; a similar operating question would not justify sharing them elsewhere. I would assess whether any exclusions still allowed a meaningful contribution across the receiving board's work. The position would need reconsideration if relationships or executive demands changed. No personal shareholding is not a complete conflict assessment, and an initial consent does not answer every later circumstance. If the role depended on time or access I could not responsibly provide, I would decline rather than allow a strong interest in board work to obscure the practical limits.
My employment with Vazqeshi and its founder owners, regional investor, customers and industrial partners would need review before an outside appointment. I have no shares or statutory seat, but those facts alone do not determine independence or resolve the relevant conflicts.