Speak
Tell us what you would argue about.
We are not looking for a case study or a keynote. We are looking for the position you hold that your own industry has not agreed with yet, and we would rather have that on stage than have a comfortable panel.
This is a working agenda. The twelve topics are set; the talking points under them are still being written, and a speaker with a sharper question changes them. So tell us the session and tell us the argument. That is the whole application.
Nobody buys the question.
Partnership can include a programme position, and where it does we publish it rather than implying it. What no partnership buys is the question a session takes on. The agenda sets that, the moderator runs the room, and every session ends in open floor. The argument you bring is the reason you are there.
What the format asks
Fifteen minutes of open floor in every session. No screened questions, no moderator filtering.
Panels run as arguments, not presentations. Nobody will ask for forty slides.
One prep call, half an hour. We shape the argument together so you are not surprised on the day.
Three actions, written down: three things the room can act on the first working day after the summit. We will help you write it.
Product pitches land badly in this room, and we will tell you so before you make one.
What you get
A room of peers rather than an audience: people who understand the problem at the level you work on it.
The objections your own team never says to your face, from people with no stake in being polite.
Editorial follow-through: sessions become written analysis on TNF India, attributed to you.
A genuine reason to talk to the chief supply chain officers, COOs, CFOs and policy architects in the room, from the stage rather than from a stand.
One named producer who handles the day, so you only think about the content.
What we are actually looking for
Someone who has done it. That is the whole standard.
Not seniority, not a household name, not how often you have spoken before. The room is full of people who run supply chains for a living, and it can tell within two minutes whether you have carried the decision you are describing. A general manager who rebuilt a landed-cost model is worth more to this agenda than a chief executive briefed on one.
So tell us the position you would take and the evidence behind it, including the part that did not work. Everything else, the format, the panel, the running order, is our job.
Where we are looking right now
Open across both days, and particularly these four.
The claim is that the supply chain seat is now a route to chief executive.
Needs someone who has defended supply chain performance to an analyst and can say whether it holds.
Connecting a systems upgrade to earnings in terms a board accepts.
Needs someone willing to take the automation case that did not land.
What breaks first, the integration or the governance.
Needs someone who has genuinely handed a decision to a system, with real guardrails.
How much resilience is worth funding, and how you defend the number.
Needs someone whose temporary reroute is now the network design.
If your argument does not fit any of them, say so anyway.
All twelve sessions, in fullStart the conversation