The familiar service concealed a different incentive

I first supported the repair-contracting idea because it appeared to complete a service we already understood. We visited sites, identified conditions requiring attention and explained recommendations. A new division could carry out some of the resulting work. The projected ₹14 crore annual revenue gave the proposal a persuasive shape. The harder question was what it would do to the judgement clients bought from us in the first place. A recommendation that might lead to our own repair income required a different account of incentives from an inspection fee alone.

I grew up in Shillong and completed civil engineering at the fictional Zamqeri Engineering College in June 1995. The next month I joined Velquri Industrial Inspection as a junior risk engineer. The company employed eighty people and recorded ₹12 crore revenue for FY ending March 1996. I worked in a six-person engineering group without direct reports or spending authority. Senior technical colleagues approved the methods and reports. I learned to distinguish a condition I had observed, an inference that needed further evidence and a recommendation whose implementation belonged to the site owner rather than to the person writing it.

In June 2002 I became regional operations lead. Velquri had 190 employees and ₹38 crore revenue for FY ending March 2003. I led twenty-four engineers through three leads within ₹3.2 crore annual operating expense. The title introduced the practical question of whether we could reach and complete the work a commercial plan assumed. A location on a map did not establish access to a facility, the availability of the right specialist or the time needed to examine an unfamiliar operation. I had to connect travel, client arrangements and technical capacity without allowing a delivery promise to decide what the report ought to find.

I joined Dorlavi in March 2009 as head of enterprise planning. The firm had 110 employees and ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2010. Seven planning colleagues worked through two leads within ₹88 lakh annual expense. The move took me away from directly managing site activity and into the assumptions behind the company's service portfolio. I became interested in the relationship between the way a contract paid us and the judgement it expected. A fee linked to an outcome beyond our authority could make an attractive commercial proposal while leaving technical colleagues with an incentive they should not have to reconcile alone.

The corporate-strategy director appointment followed in July 2015. Dorlavi employed 240 people and recorded ₹67 crore revenue for FY ending March 2016. I led twelve colleagues through three heads within ₹2.1 crore annual strategy expense. The functional title did not confer a statutory directorship. I examined opportunities to expand geography, add related services and make more use of the records generated by our work. Each looked close to an existing capability until we identified the new responsibility or permission it required. That became the main question I wanted a strategy paper to answer before presenting its revenue projection.

I became CSO in January 2021. My current team comprises eighteen employees through three heads, with ₹3.4 crore FY2026–27 operating authority. I coordinate ₹6.8 crore of change proposals, but the authorised board and finance owners decide investment and accounting treatment. Dorlavi now has 420 employees, twelve offices and seventeen insurer clients, with ₹118 crore FY ending March 2026 service revenue. Leena Zovrani is my reporting line. Girish Qevzari owns technical methods and acceptance. Our professional service does not make us the insurer or give strategy authority over a site's operations.

The repair proposal was declined after ₹65 lakh of feasibility work, with ₹30 lakh assigned to a narrower referral-process improvement. We gave up a projected business rather than prove that nobody could ever operate it responsibly. The geographic review likewise chose a different service shape: three travel clusters with ₹3.1 crore setup and ₹2.7 crore planned annual expense, instead of eight offices at ₹7.8 crore setup and ₹4.2 crore annual expense. Those alternatives did not provide identical reach. Twenty-eight of 120 reviewed requests still lacked agreed site access, which a new address alone would not have resolved.

The contract review concerned a proposed ₹6.4 crore annual fee with fifteen per cent dependent on every recommendation being implemented within ninety days. We negotiated a ₹6 crore annual schedule based on defined service quality and timeliness instead. Site owners retained implementation, and the fee schedule was not presented as revenue already earned. A later data-product pilot admitted 236 of 900 proposed files for the expressly addressed aggregate use; 664 remained excluded. The ₹42 lakh pilot did not establish permission for every future product or a commercial return already achieved.

I have no statutory seat. My fictional IICA record shows registration in April 2026, with assessment preparation unfinished and no exemption claimed. Twenty-four days is a provisional annual allowance for one outside role, subject to employer consent, conflicts and the actual calendar. My English, Hindi and Khasi reflect my working and personal background. I would bring an engineer's attention to the distinction between observation and authority, and a strategist's responsibility to examine how a new business changes the old one. A first board appointment would also require learning when to ask that question and when to leave professional management to the people accountable for it.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / English · Hindi · Khasi