Skip to website
Mira NorzethiChief Strategy Officer · Essays & perspective
Professional risk-engineering supplier
17 insurer clients
420 employees, twelve offices and ₹118 crore FY26 service revenue
Strategy organisation
18 colleagues
Three heads and ₹3.4 crore FY2026–27 function operating authority
Engineering, operations and strategy
31 years
Five contiguous appointments from July 1995; no statutory seat

The next revenue stream may change the original judgement

A proposal to add repair contracting looked close to our risk-engineering work. Our colleagues already inspected sites and explained conditions that needed attention. The proposed division would earn revenue from carrying out some of that work. I initially liked the apparent continuity. Then we asked how a client would assess an inspection recommendation when our own business could benefit from the repair it prompted. The adjacency involved a new incentive, not merely another service on the same site.

I am Mira Norzethi, CSO of the fictional Dorlavi Risk Engineering in Vadodara, originally from Shillong. We supply property-risk inspection and engineering services to seventeen insurer clients. We are not an insurer. The company has 420 employees and twelve offices, with ₹118 crore service revenue for FY ending March 2026. A domestic engineering parent holds 73%, a founding family 15% and an employee vehicle 12%; I have no personal holding. I lead eighteen strategy employees through three heads within ₹3.4 crore FY2026–27 operating authority and coordinate ₹6.8 crore of change proposals for the authorised decision-makers.

CEO Leena Zovrani owns enterprise direction, and technical director Girish Qevzari retains engineering methods and acceptance. Insurers make underwriting and claims decisions, while site owners remain responsible for their operations and remediation. My cases examine the business we choose to build around that professional work. We declined repair contracting, selected a smaller travel-cluster expansion, negotiated a fee basis that did not depend on every site recommendation being implemented and limited a proposed data product to material whose intended use had been expressly addressed.

A familiar site did not make repair contracting the same business

After ₹65 lakh of feasibility work, we declined a division with ₹14 crore projected annual revenue and funded a ₹30 lakh referral-process improvement instead.

A new office did not establish access to every site

Of 120 reviewed requests, 48 fitted routine access, 44 needed special travel and 28 lacked agreed access. We chose three travel clusters instead of the proposed eight offices.

Possessing site files did not settle a new commercial use

Only 236 of 900 proposed files had the explicit permission required for the aggregate-use pilot. The other 664 remained excluded; a ₹42 lakh pilot was not a completed commercial product.

Current focus

Choosing growth that preserves the purpose and professional boundaries of a risk-engineering service.

Conversations I welcome

One first external board discussion where service incentives and strategic scope matter, after preparation, consent and appointment-specific review.

Beyond the page

The record behind the perspective.

Formation

  • Bachelor of Engineering in Civil EngineeringZamqeri Engineering College · 1995
Mira kept the opportunity in view while explaining why the repair division would change our inspection relationship. The decision paper showed what we gave up, including the projected business and the convenience of one supplier, rather than making the narrower route appear costless.
Leena ZovraniCEO, Dorlavi Risk Engineering; fictional colleague
The full record ↗

Contact

One first external board discussion where service incentives and strategic scope matter, after preparation, consent and appointment-specific review.

  • Board appointments
Write to Mira Contact page