Recovery must return the work

I lead technology at Voluneri Vehicle Finance in Mangaluru. Our 32-branch lender had ₹970 crore of outstanding loans and 410 employees at March 2026. I manage twenty-one technology colleagues and an approved FY2026–27 envelope of ₹12 crore operating expense and ₹4 crore capital expenditure. Credit, servicing, finance and compliance retain their decision responsibilities. My role is to provide systems and evidence they can use, and to make the limits of a technology proposal visible before the business depends on it.

I started in application support in 1997, where the question after a repair was often more practical than whether the screen opened. Could a colleague retrieve the attachment, establish which version was current and continue the work without improvising? That perspective shaped my move into financial services and later into service leadership. I have become cautious about reports that compress several dependencies into one status. A restored database, a complete export and a usable branch process are related achievements, but they are not interchangeable.

My recent work has examined recovery exercises, supplier exit and branch reporting. We added document access to a recovery test after a successful restart concealed an unavailable archive. We paid for a fuller export before leaving a service provider. We also declined a large reporting replacement in favour of correcting three decisions whose inputs were unreliable. These choices did not remove every technology risk or produce immediate savings. They made the operating conditions of a decision easier for management to understand.

Current focus

I am making recovery and supplier-exit evidence part of ordinary service ownership, rather than a document assembled when a contract ends.

Conversations I welcome

I welcome enterprise-technology mandates that need a stronger connection between systems, business ownership and continuity, alongside a carefully scoped first board conversation.