From examining a sample to choosing the next development commitment

Mandate

Connect application evidence, production qualification and the funded technology portfolio

Outcomes

• Narrowed a launch route after a slurry pilot failed its criterion
• Funded review of eighteen material lots with missing process-origin evidence; eleven cleared and seven returned
• Closed a decorative variant and reassigned fourteen engineers to industrial wear and test-method work

Decisions in context

The CTO appointment brought the application claim and the development portfolio into one continuing responsibility. Sixty-two colleagues work through five managers, with engineering and testing expense distinguished from approved development capital. I report to CEO Farhad Qezvani, while quality head Mala Norsheli reports separately and retains her own acceptance authority. The useful decisions have often narrowed an apparently attractive proposition: a dry-application route instead of a broad slurry launch, a defined qualification result instead of a claim of perfect manufacture, or a stopped decorative variant instead of another stage funded by the memory of earlier effort. I want the technical account to remain intelligible to management without making every specialist question my personal decision. My task is to fund the evidence, make the opportunity cost visible and preserve the limits of the claim when it moves from the development team into a commercial or board discussion.

Reason for the move

Current role; considering a compatible first non-executive contribution

Mandate

Coordinate development priorities with manufacturing and testing capability

Outcomes

• Made continuing development obligations visible in portfolio reviews
• Connected proposed application claims with the examination work needed to support them
• Established clearer distinctions between programme learning and readiness for introduction

Decisions in context

Joining Kezrali introduced an ownership context in which working founders, an employee trust and a regional investor brought different expectations to the same technology discussion. Forty-five colleagues and four managers supported the work. I needed to explain why a promising development idea deserved another stage and what existing responsibility would lose capacity if it received one. The annual expense and approved capital figures helped make that choice concrete. I also learned to discuss closure without pretending the original investigation had been irrational. A programme can produce useful learning while failing to justify its next commitment. My work connected those portfolio decisions with the manufacturing and testing capability required behind the proposed application. The move to CTO followed the need to keep that account coherent across a larger function, including the point where technical evidence became a product promise that other parts of the business would carry.

Reason for the move

Promoted to CTO with a broader continuing remit over engineering, testing and application commitments

Mandate

Interpret customer operating needs before attaching a material result to an application

Outcomes

• Brought intended operating conditions into development briefs
• Separated familiar product descriptions from evidence of equivalent use
• Connected customer discussions with the qualification responsibilities of technical owners

Decisions in context

Applications engineering changed the centre of my attention from the material result to the use someone intended to make of it. The team grew to twenty-nine colleagues through three managers, with a defined annual expense and approved development allocation. A familiar product description could conceal important differences in operating conditions, installation or the material being handled. I learned to ask for those differences before offering a comparison based on a laboratory result. The work also required restraint: understanding the customer's question did not authorise me to replace the qualified acceptance process. I wanted the commercial and technical teams to share a clear account of what had been examined and what remained outside it. This period made me more interested in the whole development portfolio, because the evidence required for one application competed with the people and facilities needed to investigate another.

Reason for the move

Accepted a broader technology portfolio role with responsibility beyond applications engineering

Mandate

Choose and execute development questions with a defined intended application

Outcomes

• Linked laboratory programmes to explicit application questions
• Made the use of limited development capacity visible to engineering management
• Completed a part-time materials-characterisation diploma in November 2010

Decisions in context

My first leadership appointment made the choice of a question as important as the execution of an experiment. Twelve colleagues and two leads worked within an annual laboratory and development expense of one crore sixty lakh rupees. We could investigate many technically interesting ideas, but the business could not support all of them through manufacture and customer introduction. I began asking what the intended application required and which result would change the next decision. Part-time study at Zervashi Engineering Institute, completed in November 2010, deepened my understanding of materials characterisation while employment continued. It did not replace the experience of explaining a result to someone who needed to use the product. The later applications role grew naturally from that question: how could development remain technically careful while becoming more precise about the customer condition its work was meant to serve?

Reason for the move

Promoted to lead applications engineering across a wider customer and product remit

Mandate

Examine material samples and explain the conditions behind the result

Outcomes

• Documented sample and examination conditions alongside observations
• Escalated interpretation questions to the responsible laboratory owner
• Learned to distinguish an accurate result from an overbroad claim about it

Decisions in context

I joined in July 1999 after completing ceramic engineering in May. The seven-person laboratory group gave me a practical introduction to the discipline behind a material claim. I had no direct reports or budget authority and worked within assignments set by the laboratory supervisor. Before discussing the implication of a number, I was expected to explain the sample and the conditions under which it had been examined. That habit prevented a precise-looking result from acquiring a meaning it had not earned. I also learned when to ask for help: a measurement problem and an interpretation problem could require different specialists. The role made development attractive because it connected careful observation with a decision about what to investigate next. Moving to Norzhemi brought responsibility for those choices, and for the people whose time would be committed to answering them.

Reason for the move

Moved into a development leadership appointment with responsibility for people and programme priorities