Kavita Neshquri · Chief Information Officer · India
Ask what the assurance enables the enterprise to believe
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine whether management's systems evidence answers the business question directors believe they are asking. My experience includes an integration I approved that created unintended purchase commitments, a recovery rehearsal whose business endpoint came later than technical restoration and identity records that did not establish individual attribution. Those cases teach me to ask about the action, authority and conditions inside a reassuring report. I would bring that habit into collective oversight while learning the receiving enterprise beyond technology. The board should not become a substitute design team or incident desk. It should understand the material consequence, the unresolved dependency and the evidence management will use to demonstrate progress. I would need colleagues with complementary financial, commercial and people experience to challenge my own assumptions. My contribution would be strongest when a technical assurance needs to be connected with the enterprise decision it is being used to support.
Judgement in practice
01
Retaining the approved design error behind cancelled duplicate orders
Seventeen duplicate orders with ₹34 lakh face value arose from an integration I approved. They were cancelled before supply and repair cost ₹13 lakh. I would explain why the missing response left the earlier outcome uncertain and why another transmission did not establish another purchasing intention. The board should understand the commitment and correction without being asked to choose the technical mechanism. My original approval belongs in that account. Cancellation is neither a realised loss of the order value nor a saving equal to it; the repair expenditure remains distinct. This case would help me ask whether management has preserved business authority in an automated process and whether its explanation acknowledges the decision that allowed the weakness to enter use.
02
Keeping business completion visible beside restoration speed
A planned rehearsal restored systems by hour six but completed its agreed business flow at hour twenty-nine from the same start. We funded a ₹71 lakh programme without claiming an improved later recovery time. I would ask what the enterprise needs to be able to do, which conditions the exercise actually tested and what remains assumed. Directors can examine those questions without directing recovery procedures. Technical achievement deserves recognition within its scope, while the unresolved operating work must remain visible. The programme needs later evidence before its funding becomes a claimed outcome, and a rehearsal result should not be presented as proof of readiness for every real disruption.
03
Examining attribution without inventing misconduct
Forty-four of 120 sampled entries from shared terminals could not be attributed to individuals from the available records. A₹48 lakh programme addressed identity and usability. I would distinguish that evidence gap from a claim of fraud and separate the person recording an action from the person authorised to approve its effect. The board can ask whether important records support the conclusions management draws from them and whether the operating practice is usable. It should not assume a new tool has completed the improvement before the result is assessed. This example also reminds me to examine the arrangement management approved, rather than place every weakness at the feet of the last employee who used it.
My first year on a board
I would begin by learning how the receiving enterprise makes and fulfils its material commitments. That means understanding customers, economics, people and responsibilities before proposing familiar technology remedies. I would follow selected board decisions through management's assumptions, approval, implementation and later reporting. I would ask which evidence directors rely on and where its scope may be narrower than the conclusion attached to it. Induction would include listening to operating and financial leaders as well as technology specialists, with access arranged through the chair and proper management channels. I would seek feedback on whether my questions help collective judgement or drift into operational direction. A useful first year would broaden my understanding of the institution and establish a dependable preparation practice. It would not be measured by the number of systems projects I persuaded another management team to start.
Conflicts and their management
Before receiving confidential material, I would disclose my executive position and relevant relationships involving Qelvethi's founders, industrial fund, customers, suppliers and service partners. Qualified review would need to assess the actual appointment, applicable independence conditions and committee or directorship requirements. Protected supplier terms, system records and employee details would remain with their proper owners. Experience from one enterprise does not confer permission to reuse its confidential material in another. I would examine whether exclusions still allowed a meaningful contribution across the receiving board's work, and revisit the assessment when circumstances changed. Consent would also need to address the time commitment, including exceptional demands. If conflicts or executive duties made participation unreliable, I would reconsider the seat rather than allow enthusiasm for a first appointment to obscure those limitations.
My independence statement
My executive role and Qelvethi's founder, fund, customer and supplier relationships require assessment for any outside appointment. No personal equity or current statutory seat is not itself a conclusion about independence.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qelvethi Workshop Furniture
Enterprise systems and recovery proposals presented through the CEO
January 2021 onward
Explains tested business conditions and programme dependencies; no director or committee-member status claimed.
Fictional preparation: IICA databank registration in February 2026 and proficiency-assessment pass in September 2026. These do not establish eligibility for a particular appointment or committee.
Develop collective judgement across finance, people and industrial strategy
Examine the evidence behind a business-system assurance
Learn the receiving institution's duties and role-specific requirements