The successful transformation still needed the right meaning

I began as a developer who took satisfaction in making an application behave consistently. A successful import, a reproducible conversion or a completed background job offered a clear result. Business-systems leadership gradually made that definition of success less comfortable. The software could do exactly what its transformation specified while changing the meaning of a date, detaching a number from its label or continuing to offer a document its owner had withdrawn. I had to learn to ask what the user was entitled to infer after the system had finished.

After computer-science studies at Zaqvrelhi Science College in May 1998, I joined Devlqari Business Systems in June. I worked in a seven-person application group under a technical lead. My work involved business forms and supporting records, with no authority to decide the customer’s contractual or accounting meaning. I learned to ask users about apparently ordinary fields because a label could conceal an assumption that the application team did not share. Early development work gave me the habit of tracing a visible result back to the transformation that produced it.

In April 2005 I became application team lead. Nine colleagues worked within ₹92 lakh annual delivery expense, while client project budgets and business approvals remained separate. I had to translate conversations between developers and the people who would rely on the system. A technical explanation could be correct yet fail to answer whether the customer’s task had been preserved. I wanted to follow that question beyond a supplier handover and into the continuing life of the business application.

Zarqevli appointed me business-systems manager in April 2011. Fifteen colleagues worked within ₹2.1 crore annual technology expense. The company’s industrial service administration depended on contracts, schedules, metering-service records and internal guidance, but the application team did not own the professional meaning of all those records. I worked with commercial and service owners to make acceptance a shared responsibility. That arrangement later became important when the technical completion of a migration concealed a change to calendar dates.

I became head of information technology in April 2017, leading twenty-four colleagues within ₹3.8 crore annual operating expense. In 2019 I approved the contract migration that converted date-only values through timestamp handling. The receiving display shifted twenty-four of eighty reviewed dates a day earlier. I had accepted the successful transfer as stronger evidence than it was. We suspended the affected reminders and corrected the representation with the contract owners. The mistake made business interpretation a more explicit part of my own release review.

Since April 2022 I have been CIO, reporting to Amit Qezlvani. Four leads manage thirty-two technology employees, with five external specialists separate from that count. Commercial-services head Nirmala Vazqerli helps establish the business meaning behind our acceptance questions. The table-conversion programme required us to preserve relationships between values and labels, including for users relying on assistive technology. A later withdrawal review required the retrieval route to stop offering guidance its owner had retired. In both cases the remaining problem was outside the narrow definition of a completed technical job.

The company has 318 employees and serves 120 business clients. FY2025–26 service revenue was ₹86 crore, which should not be confused with the value of gas handled under other parties’ supply arrangements. My annual operating expense is ₹5.7 crore and the approved change programme is a separate ₹1.9 crore. An industrial investor owns 54 percent, founders 31 percent and an employee vehicle 15 percent. I hold no personal equity or beneficial interest, and no statutory directorship. Technology leadership does not confer gas-operating, safety or contractual authority.

I would want another CIO role to give business owners a real voice in defining what a change must preserve. The question is not whether every technical decision needs a committee, but whether acceptance examines the meaning on which people will act. A first outside-board contribution would require further preparation and relationship assessment. I could help directors question the assumptions behind a digital-change claim without becoming a second application team. The experience I would bring includes an error of my own: a successful import was not the same thing as a correct business calendar, and I needed to change my approval standard after discovering the difference.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / Hindi · Urdu · English