I can help a board examine whether a strategic opportunity describes the enterprise's own economy and responsibilities clearly enough to support a commitment. My venue-services experience connects income measures, event calendars, operating capacity and changes in business model. I have also had to reopen an appraisal I approved, so the contribution includes willingness to retain a material correction rather than defend the original presentation. I would ask what the central number belongs to, what must be supplied to earn it and which part of the recommendation remains uncertain. These questions should draw on finance, operations and professional expertise around the table, not displace it. The board's role is to judge the proposed direction and the way management understands its consequences. I would not expect directors to allocate crews, design museum admissions or negotiate individual venue contracts. My contribution would be strongest where an attractive growth story needs to be connected to the specific enterprise the board is prepared to govern, including what it chooses not to pursue.
Judgement in practice
01
Accepting the cost of correcting my own investment frame
I approved the paper that foregrounded ₹186 crore of ticket face value when the selected portfolio generated ₹12.4 crore in our service fees. Finance's challenge led me to recommend a ₹37 lakh reassessment rather than preserve the original argument through qualifications. The proposed ₹9.2 crore transaction did not proceed. I did not present the unspent consideration as cash saved or claim that the decision prevented a known future loss. For a board, the useful judgement is whether management can recognise that the basis of a recommendation has changed and make the correction explicit. The experience also shows the boundary of my role: I led the strategic account while finance retained its assessments and the authorised decision-makers retained the commitment. That division should remain visible when an executive describes a decision to a nomination committee.
02
Distinguishing a smaller commitment from an efficiency claim
The four-city expansion proposal required twelve permanent teams and ₹5.4 crore annual operating expense. Examining thirty-six selected assignments showed twenty-four concentrated on eight weekends. I recommended four reserve crews with ₹2.1 crore annual commitment, accepting less capacity and a smaller initial ambition. The difference in expenditure was not a realised saving from delivering identical work more efficiently. I would bring that distinction into board scrutiny of other growth proposals: has management improved the delivery model, reduced the service promise or changed the kind of work it intends to pursue? Each can be legitimate, but the conclusion needs to match the evidence. Operations retained deployment authority, and the strategic recommendation retained the opportunities that the revised model would leave outside the offer. The board should see that sacrifice alongside the lower commitment.
My first year on a board
In a first board year I would learn the business through the connection between its commercial promises and its operating commitments. I would ask to understand a small number of material strategic decisions from initial proposition through authorisation and review, using the chair's agreed process. The purpose would be to see how assumptions, professional input and unresolved questions reach the board, not to create a second executive approval route. I would study the financial model with directors who bring deeper accounting experience, and learn where the enterprise's capacity or contractual responsibilities make a superficially attractive opportunity difficult. I would also test my provisional twenty-one-day estimate against actual preparation and meeting demands, including periods when management needs urgent attention. A useful first year should improve my understanding before I form strong conclusions about every expansion paper. I would want my questions to help the collective board distinguish a well-supported choice from a persuasive description whose important obligations remain outside the frame.
Conflicts and their management
My current CSO role creates relationships with venues, event-service providers, investors and prospective partners that could overlap with a proposed appointment. I would need to disclose the relevant relationships and examine the specific conflict rather than assume that a different company name removes it. Some situations may be manageable through the required governance process, including recusal or restrictions where appropriate; others may make the appointment unsuitable. Confidential client calendars, transaction proposals and internal strategic work would not become material I could bring to another board. The experience I can contribute is judgement about how an opportunity is assessed, not access to another enterprise's commercial plans. There is also a capacity conflict to examine: difficult periods in two organisations may coincide. I would review that risk with the proposed chair and my employer rather than rely on an annual average that ignores concentrated demands. A clear answer may sometimes be that the role is not compatible with my continuing executive responsibilities.
My independence statement
I hold no personal equity in Telqavzi and have no statutory directorship. Those facts do not establish independence from a proposed company. Commercial, professional, family and other relevant relationships would require a current assessment under the applicable requirements, including the company-specific independence framework. I would make the required declarations and keep them updated. My CSO title and executive board presentations are not substitutes for that review, a nomination process or the skills assessment relevant to a particular committee.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Telqavzi Venue Systems
Board discussions on strategic appraisals, service expansion and adjacencies
2015–present
I presented the portfolio reassessment, the calendar-based expansion choice and the promoter proposal in my executive capacity. I explained the recommendation, the expense of the review and the responsibilities retained by finance, operations and the authorised decision-makers. These presentations were not service as a director or committee member.