Skip to website
Ayesha NeralqviChief Data Officer

Ayesha Neralqvi · Chief Data Officer · India

From checking sources to shaping responsibility

Apr 2023 — Present

Chief Data Officer

Dalqeri Credit Research

Sector
Business-information datasets for corporate credit research
Ownership
Founders 60%; domestic investment partnership 40%
Company scale
₹78 crore FY2025–26 company revenue
Employees
269
Geography
Indore headquarters;48 corporate client teams in India
Reporting to
Chief Executive Officer
Team
Thirty-four data colleagues through four managers
Financial scope
₹7.6 crore approved annual data-function expenditure

Mandate

Keep evidence, permissions and methodological limits attached to research products.

Outcomes

  • Reduced launch coverage from 8,400 to 6,100 companies after source review
  • Revised a label after 74 of 240 sampled classifications disagreed
  • Withdrew a sector-wide claim based only on 420 continuing businesses

Decisions in context

The CDO role brings source governance and research methods into decisions about the company's products. I lead a defined team and budget while working with the head of research, legal advisers and product owners. The source-permission case required a smaller release, the classification case required a more explicit question and the population case required a narrower claim. None could be resolved by a data team independently declaring the business answer. My responsibility was to make the evidence and consequences clear enough for the authorised owners to decide. I also work on the management capability below me so that unresolved issues have a route to resolution rather than accumulate until I review a release. Board attendance is by invitation for material product matters. It is not a director appointment, and client lending decisions remain outside my remit.

Reason for the move

Current role; preparing the data function for a broader product portfolio.

Apr 2018 — Mar 2023

Head of data stewardship

Dalqeri Credit Research

Sector
Research-data sourcing and product stewardship
Ownership
Founder-controlled with minority domestic investment
Company scale
₹36–64 crore annual revenue over tenure
Employees
142–231
Geography
Indore with research teams serving national business clients
Reporting to
Chief Data Officer
Team
Twenty-one stewardship colleagues at departure
Financial scope
₹4.1 crore annual function budget at departure

Mandate

Connect approved source use and methodological decisions with actual product releases.

Outcomes

  • Introduced source-to-product use records
  • Established a route for unresolved classification questions
  • Added product examples to source-permission reviews

Decisions in context

Stewardship required me to connect decisions held in different parts of the company. Legal colleagues could interpret source terms, researchers could explain a category and product teams could describe what clients wanted to receive. The difficulty was making those accounts meet before release. I helped establish a record linking sources to intended outputs and a route for questions that could not be settled by existing instructions. I also reviewed how quality samples were chosen. A high agreement rate on easy examples did not establish that difficult material was understood consistently. The role taught me to make uncertainty actionable without pretending that every case could be reduced to a simple rule. It also required management of a larger team whose judgement had to remain consistent across products, while leaving legal interpretation and research conclusions with their responsible owners.

Reason for the move

Promoted to CDO as the company expanded its external dataset business.

Apr 2012 — Mar 2018

Dataset manager

Dalqeri Credit Research

Sector
Company-information collections
Ownership
Founding shareholders
Company scale
₹15–36 crore annual revenue over tenure
Employees
67–142
Geography
Indore; corporate research clients across India
Reporting to
Head of Data Operations
Team
Eleven data researchers and reviewers
Financial scope
₹1.7 crore annual collection and review budget at departure

Mandate

Deliver research datasets with definitions and release changes users can interpret.

Outcomes

  • Added definition-change notes to dataset releases
  • Documented populations used in longitudinal collections
  • Introduced cross-review of difficult company records

Decisions in context

Managing datasets added delivery commitments to the methodological work I already understood. Eleven colleagues collected and reviewed company information, and product teams expected releases on agreed dates. A revised definition could improve the current dataset while making an earlier comparison misleading if the change was not explained. I introduced release notes that described the consequence for users, not merely the technical field changed. I also learnt to discuss coverage with commercial colleagues. A smaller, well-understood population could be more useful for a particular question, but that argument needed evidence rather than a general preference for caution. The role developed my ability to make methods practical under delivery pressure. It prepared me for stewardship by showing that quality depends on the way a dataset is used as well as the checks applied while assembling it.

Reason for the move

Moved into stewardship as sources and product uses became more varied.

Apr 2006 — Mar 2012

Data-methods analyst

Dalqeri Credit Research

Sector
Business research information for credit teams
Ownership
Privately held by founders
Company scale
₹5.1–15 crore annual revenue over tenure
Employees
29–67
Geography
Indore with regional corporate clients
Reporting to
Research Methods Manager
Team
Analyst in a five-person methods group; no direct reports
Financial scope
Assigned methods projects and expenses; no product-price authority

Mandate

Define research categories and retain evidence supporting their application.

Outcomes

  • Prepared examples for recurring company-information categories
  • Linked reviewed observations to source references
  • Identified ambiguous instructions through researcher feedback

Decisions in context

I joined to work more closely with the methods behind business research. The client credit teams made their own financial decisions; my task was to help our researchers apply categories consistently and explain the source evidence. I reviewed difficult records with the methods manager and wrote examples that colleagues could use in daily work. Some disagreements revealed unclear instructions rather than an obvious error by one person. I began documenting those cases so the method could improve without silently changing earlier results. The role also taught me to distinguish a statement in a source from the conclusion a reader might draw from it. Promotion followed an ability to make that distinction understandable to colleagues and to take responsibility for the practical quality of a dataset, not just the correctness of one analytical note.

Reason for the move

Promoted to manage datasets and take responsibility for release quality.

Jun 2000 — Mar 2006

Research assistant

Vesquli Information Services

Sector
Regional business-information studies
Ownership
Private research partnership
Company scale
₹0.8–2.7 crore annual service revenue over tenure
Employees
16–38
Geography
Indore and regional business locations
Reporting to
Research Manager
Team
Assistant within project groups of four to six
Financial scope
Assigned collection and checking tasks; no independent budget

Mandate

Prepare traceable research tables and identify gaps in source records.

Outcomes

  • Checked company records against cited sources
  • Recorded exclusions instead of silently removing them
  • Helped revise category instructions after fieldwork questions

Decisions in context

My first role was practical and closely supervised. I checked records, assembled tables and made sure that a source could be found again when a reviewer asked a question. I initially assumed that a complete table was a good table. Research work showed me that a company omitted from the latest file could change the meaning of a comparison, even when every remaining calculation was correct. I learnt to record exclusions and to ask why a category had been chosen. Senior colleagues reviewed my work, and I did not offer independent conclusions to clients. The move to a methods role came from wanting to improve the instructions behind collection, rather than repeatedly correct the same uncertainty at the end. That early attention to source and population remains part of my current leadership approach.

Reason for the move

Joined a specialist research company to develop data-methods responsibility.

What I am looking for next

I would consider a CDO appointment in a research, business-information or analytical-product company that wants a stronger relationship between evidence and commercial output. The remit should include data methods and stewardship, with access to the people who decide product scope and source use. I would want to understand the company's customers and its current correction process before proposing a new platform or governance structure. My experience does not establish authority over every financial model, legal permission or client decision. A transition should preserve those professional boundaries while giving the data function enough influence to raise material concerns early. I would also consider one initial board role at a non-competing information or service business. The contribution would be to question what a data-dependent claim actually establishes, not to become the organisation's informal chief analyst. Employer agreement, preparation and a realistic calendar would be needed, alongside a planned handover of my current responsibilities and the development of the managers who would continue them.