What the receiving owner believed the record meant

The equipment existed in the workshop before it existed in a unified register. A battery and a charger could have the same local number because their earlier records had been maintained separately. In 2018 I approved an import that used the number alone as the enterprise identity. A selected review found 24 physical devices represented by 18 records. Six pairs had been collapsed because the import treated a shared number as evidence of a shared identity. My approval had made that assumption part of the system.

I grew up in Surat and completed a Bachelor of Science in Computing at the fictional Kelnavri Computing College in May 1994. I joined Varnelshi Systems Services in June in an eight-person support group. We helped users describe what an application was doing and passed changes to authorised colleagues. I learned that two people could use the same word for different things, and that a technically consistent field could still conceal a distinction important to the work.

In April 2002 I became an applications lead with eleven colleagues and ₹1.5 crore annual expense. Client systems often reflected the history of a particular department. A field that was unambiguous inside one practice could become ambiguous when the business tried to combine it with another. I learned to ask the receiving team what a record meant before recommending a shared design. Client owners retained their operating decisions; my team had to make the system support those decisions without silently changing their subject.

I joined Derlashi Urban Cargo in April 2010 as enterprise-systems manager, leading sixteen colleagues within ₹2.8 crore annual expense. Continuing employment inside an operator meant that I followed the consequence after an implementation handover. Roshan’s colleagues needed to distinguish equipment, work already completed and the decisions still outstanding. The system could help them organise those questions, but it could not determine vehicle or charging suitability merely by giving an item a complete record.

I became head of IT in April 2016, with twenty colleagues and ₹3.7 crore annual expense. The mistaken import followed two years later. We committed ₹37 lakh to an eight-week review of the selected equipment identities and their histories. The corrected register distinguished the 24 devices and preserved the earlier references needed to understand the records. We did not describe the repair as proof that every equipment record was accurate or that any device was safe for use. I had to explain why an apparently simpler register had become less faithful to the physical operation.

I became CIO in April 2021. Twenty-three colleagues now work through three leads within ₹4.9 crore annual expense and a separate ₹2.6 crore change programme. In 2023 we funded a ten-week, ₹47 lakh exercise around disconnected operating work. The selected group contained 32 handover events: 24 online and eight recorded while disconnected. Reconciliation had to preserve what had already happened rather than make the later upload appear to be new activity. Operations retained the decisions about what could continue during disruption.

In 2025 a supplier-exit rehearsal tested twelve agreed business functions in a replacement environment. Ten ran as intended; two still depended on supplier components. The export itself had not established that the enterprise could operate independently. We spent ₹63 lakh over twelve weeks resolving the dependencies and retesting the agreed scope. All twelve then ran under the rehearsal conditions. That result did not prove universal resilience or eliminate every future supplier dependency.

I do not hold a statutory appointment or an ownership interest in Derlashi. Further governance learning remains necessary before a first outside-board role. I would bring experience of testing the meaning behind an apparently complete technical result. An identified item is not automatically suitable equipment; a reconciled event is not a new physical action; an exported dataset is not a working business capability. I want the enterprise to understand those limits while there is still time to change the design or the agreement it relies on. The practice also changed my review meetings. I ask an operating colleague to explain what they believe they can now do, then ask the technology owner which evidence supports that belief. A disagreement between those answers is useful unfinished work. It deserves examination before the programme account turns it into an accepted promise.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / English · Hindi · Gujarati