Learning what an attractive output can leave behind

My early engineering work involved images that were easy to recognise but harder to describe precisely. A file could open correctly while carrying less information than its author intended. An operation could produce an attractive result while removing the starting material needed for another choice. I became interested in the difference between a successful screen action and a dependable working process. That interest eventually brought me into retail, where technical decisions affect the evidence a customer uses to choose a product.

I completed computer-engineering studies in May 2003 and joined Nerqelvi Imaging Software the following month. In a six-person development group, I implemented bounded image-handling features under a senior engineer’s review. I had no independent release or spending authority. My task was to make the required behaviour reproducible and to explain the circumstances in which it changed. I learned that a picture alone rarely supplied an adequate test record: the source file, operation and viewing conditions mattered as well. That habit made later commercial discussions less comfortable, but more useful.

In 2009 I became an engineering lead with eight colleagues and ₹84 lakh annual delivery expense. Client owners still approved product scope and release. Leading people taught me to examine how the team’s evidence reached those owners. A demonstration could show the most persuasive example and leave the awkward one in a developer’s notes. I wanted the reviewer to see the limits of the feature while a choice could still be made. I also learned to distinguish a technical objection from a preference for my own implementation, so that caution did not become an excuse to avoid a legitimate product trade-off.

Delqerni appointed me product-engineering manager in 2014. Thirteen colleagues worked within ₹2.2 crore annual engineering expense. Joining the retailer let me follow the customer guidance after release rather than hand over a component and move to another client. Product specialists could explain why two apparently similar images were not suitable evidence for the same comparison. Commercial colleagues could explain which unanswered question prevented a customer from deciding. My role was to connect those needs with engineering behaviour, without pretending that software could replace product expertise or remove every limitation of a remote demonstration.

I became engineering director in 2019, leading twenty-one colleagues through two managers within ₹4.4 crore annual operating expense. The title described an executive function, not a statutory appointment. During this period I endorsed the crop workflow that overwrote working source files in the 2020 rehearsal. I had concentrated on the visible edit and the speed of the task. Holding the release meant acknowledging that my acceptance account had omitted the next editor’s need to return to the starting asset. I also asked the colleague who had challenged the workflow to present the awkward result directly, so the executive account would not reduce a justified objection to a minor technical footnote. That participation changed the discussion about release responsibility. The repair changed the way I asked for evidence: a transformation needed an account of what it preserved as well as what it produced.

The CTO appointment followed in 2023. I now report to CEO Rhea Qervnali and work alongside CIO Vikram Zelqnari, whose remit covers internal information services. Engineering has twenty-eight colleagues, with annual operations and separately approved development authority stated distinctly. The company’s ownership combines founders, an investment partnership and employees; I have no personal holding. Invited presentations to directors concern product technology and investment choices. They do not make me a member of the board. I ask the product owner to accompany the engineering account so that commercial responsibility does not disappear behind technical vocabulary.

The colour-export and product-answer experiments have reinforced the importance of bounded claims. I can fund a better test and preserve an unresolved result, but I cannot promise identical colour on every customer display or make a language system truthful by giving its answer a confident layout. Those limits should inform the proposition before a launch commitment is made. I remain interested in executive responsibility that treats them as product questions. For an outside role, I would need further preparation and an experienced chair who values technical challenge without asking a director to become a second engineering manager.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / Hindi · Urdu · English