The professional question my release report had omitted

The upgrade report I signed was accurate about the question it had asked. The files opened, users could reach the application and familiar screens were present. It was incomplete about the question the practice needed answered. Sonal Drezvemi asked whether the agreed engineering benchmarks still produced results within the relevant comparison criteria. That examination exposed changed defaults and twelve cases requiring further explanation. My error was to treat a technology acceptance exercise as though it covered the professional continuity of the work. I now make those different forms of acceptance explicit before a release date becomes a commitment.

I was born in Vijayawada and completed a computing degree at the fictional Nevqami Institute of Computing in June 1999. In July I joined Pezvori Document Services as a document systems analyst. The company employed seventy-eight people and recorded ₹ 9.8 crore revenue for FY ending March 2000. I contributed to a seven-person applications group without direct reports or delegated spending authority. Much of the work concerned the movement of documents between systems and the practical questions users asked when a file arrived. I learned that successful transfer did not establish that the receiving person could interpret the content correctly.

Promotion to systems integration manager came in June 2005. Pezvori had 166 employees and ₹ 27 crore revenue for FY ending March 2006. Eleven colleagues worked through two leads within ₹ 76 lakh annual function expense. I began owning the explanation between teams as well as the technical connection between applications. An interface could move a field faithfully while leaving its unit or intended use uncertain. I needed the business owner to answer those questions rather than have developers invent plausible interpretations. Managing the team also taught me how easily a delivery timetable can narrow the acceptance question without anyone explicitly deciding to do so.

Jezqavi recruited me as enterprise applications manager in September 2011. The advisory practice employed 172 people and recorded ₹ 48 crore revenue for FY ending March 2012. My thirteen colleagues worked through two leads within ₹ 1.8 crore annual expense. The move brought technology much closer to professional judgement. Engineers needed dependable working environments, but their conclusions were not technology outputs that I could approve on their behalf. I worked on the connection between application support and the practice's own review, learning to ask what an apparently routine system change might alter in the work a qualified colleague was expected to defend.

I became head of IT in July 2016. At that stage Jezqavi had 330 employees and ₹ 112 crore revenue for FY ending March 2017. I led twenty-five people through three leads with ₹ 4.9 crore annual expense. The wider remit included workplace computing, application operations and investment sequencing. It brought a recurring tension between uniform systems and the exceptions required by particular professional tasks. I wanted consistency because it made support more manageable. I also learned that a common platform could be a poor answer if its introduction removed a working condition that mattered to one part of the practice.

The CIO appointment followed in January 2022. The company now employs 510 people and reports ₹ 194 crore FY26 revenue. I lead thirty-nine technology staff through four leads with ₹ 8.6 crore FY2026–27 operating expense and a separate ₹ 2.7 crore programme. I report to Iqbal Tazvemi; Sonal retains technical-practice responsibility. The partner vehicle holds 47%, a family investor 33% and another investor 20%. My employment brings neither personal equity nor a place on the statutory board. Those enterprise figures describe the setting for my decisions, while the function budget and reporting line describe the authority I actually exercise.

The benchmark review cost ₹ 92 lakh and left twelve cases outside the migration. The practice accepted eighteen understood differences under its own criteria, but I did not describe that decision as a software finding that the underlying engineering was correct. The remote-computing pilot made another limit visible. Twenty of twenty-four representative tasks met agreed interaction conditions, while four retained designated local workstations. The ₹ 42 lakh pilot and ₹ 16 lakh additional annual support did not become a claim that the entire practice could work through one route or that employees could be removed because a technical option existed.

We also reconsidered a compute queue whose apparently neutral submission order concealed different client-review dependencies. A later eighty-job observation recorded sixty-two completions before the agreed cutoff and eighteen carried forward. That described one operating period, not a universal service promise or proof of engineering validity. A separate import review found twenty uncertain units among 120 measurement rows. Twelve were confirmed by source owners and eight held. The value of the correction was preserving the question for someone entitled to answer it, not finding a clever way for the software to make the ambiguity disappear.

I work in Telugu and English, with working Gujarati developed in Surat. After twenty-seven years in systems and technology leadership, I am exploring how this experience could contribute to collective oversight. I have presented as an executive but never served as a director. In the fictional record, I have not yet registered for the IICA databank and claim neither an assessment result nor an exemption. Twenty-four days is an initial planning allowance, subject to the actual calendar and employer consent. The contribution I would seek to make is a disciplined question about what a technology milestone establishes, what it leaves to professional judgement and what the enterprise is committing to support after the milestone has passed.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Telugu · English · Gujarati — working proficiency