Make the proposed responsibility clear before committing

I think a board should be able to see which enterprise a strategy asks it to govern. That sounds straightforward, but an attractive opportunity can be described through a customer's activity, a wider market or a prospective business model without making the change in responsibility explicit. My own portfolio appraisal did this when it foregrounded ₹186 crore of ticket face value while the selected relationships generated ₹12.4 crore in our fees. The governance question was not whether the larger activity mattered. It was whether the recommendation gave decision-makers a sound account of the income and obligations on which the proposed commitment depended.

I owned the original framing and recommended the ₹37 lakh reassessment after finance challenged it. The proposed ₹9.2 crore transaction did not proceed. A board account should retain the cost of that correction and the uncertainty of the rejected future. Calling the unspent consideration a saving would have replaced one overextended interpretation with another. I would want directors to encourage management to identify a changed basis of recommendation early, while still asking why the original paper was insufficient. Openness to correction and accountability for the initial work need to coexist; one should not be used to remove the other from discussion.

The four-city expansion illustrates a different governance distinction. Twelve permanent new teams with ₹5.4 crore annual expense became four reserve crews with ₹2.1 crore commitment after calendar review. The revision offered less capacity and a smaller initial ambition. It was not an efficiency claim about doing identical work with fewer resources. Directors need that distinction to assess what management is choosing. The board should understand the service promises and risks of the model without becoming the group that assigns individual crews. Nikhil and the operating team retained deployment responsibility, including the practical limits of travel, preparation and simultaneous demand.

Adjacencies require a similarly explicit account of what changes. Our museum pilot developed a related service in a different operating setting; the promoter proposal would have changed the enterprise's economic position in an event. The former continued in two of three venues, while the latter was declined after review. I would not ask a board to treat these as a single category of expansion. It should understand what capabilities transfer, which must be developed and which professional responsibilities remain elsewhere. Our museum work did not certify occupancy, and our knowledge of ticketing did not establish readiness to own a promoter's commercial exposure.

I have presented these matters in an executive capacity since my strategy-director role began in 2015. I have not served as a statutory director or committee member. A first board appointment would require a company-specific independence assessment, appropriate preparation and a realistic view of time. My June 2026 IICA registration is recorded with the proficiency assessment unfinished and no exemption claimed. I do not infer eligibility from an executive title, and I do not claim readiness to chair a statutory committee. Applicable independence, committee and directorship requirements would need current review for the particular company and role.

My continuing employment also creates relationships and information boundaries that matter. A prospective board could overlap with venues, service providers, investors or opportunities encountered in my executive work. Disclosure and the required conflict process would need to address the actual situation; some roles might simply be incompatible. Internal client calendars or investment proposals are not portable evidence for another company. I can contribute the judgement developed through those decisions without carrying their confidential material into a new setting. Twenty-one days is a provisional annual estimate, and I would test it against preparation, travel and concentrated demands rather than rely on an average alone.

The contribution I would like to make is a disciplined discussion of what management is asking the enterprise to become. That includes an honest account of the business it declines to enter and the opportunity a smaller model leaves outside its offer. I would seek induction and complementary skills around the table, particularly where other directors have deeper finance, legal or operating expertise. A good strategy discussion should leave management with a clear decision and accountability, not a competing executive team inside the board. My role would be to help the collective board understand the choice, its evidence and its unresolved consequences before the commitment is made.