Following the measurement beyond the laboratory assignment

Mandate

Connect product claims and technical investment with evidence about the intended measurement use

Outcomes

• Withdrew my release support when fitness remained unestablished
• Kept laboratory endurance separate from a field-life promise
• Retained missed disturbances in the product evaluation
• Declined a component substitution without adequate qualification

Decisions in context

I became CTO in January 2022. The company now has 410 employees and ₹208 crore FY26 revenue, while my function covers sixty-eight colleagues through five heads. The ₹14.6 crore FY2026–27 operating expense and ₹6.2 crore approved laboratory capital are separate responsibilities. Sandeep leads the enterprise and Noor retains an independent quality voice. I have no personal equity or statutory seat. The appointment made me accountable for the reasoning connecting development evidence with the business's proposed commitments. I had to correct my own reliance on a calibration record and prevent laboratory hours from becoming an unsupported life statement. Later work retained missed events and unsuccessful component assessments instead of allowing favourable examples to define the entire result. Those decisions cost money and constrained commercial language. A board contribution would use that experience to examine management's evidence while respecting the technical and executive owners who remain responsible for the product.

Reason for the move

Current executive role; exploring one first board contribution

Mandate

Develop measurement products while preserving the conditions behind qualification and reuse

Outcomes

• Examined which evidence remained relevant when a product changed
• Connected component choices with qualification obligations
• Brought development uncertainty into executive planning

Decisions in context

The head-of-engineering role began in July 2015. Dazqavi had 234 employees and ₹86 crore revenue for FY ending March 2016. Forty-four colleagues worked through four leads within ₹7.2 crore annual engineering expense. A wider product range made reuse attractive: familiar components, established test material and previous design knowledge could reduce repeated effort. I learned that reuse had to retain the conditions that made earlier evidence relevant. A part that looked similar or a test that had once been successful still needed to be considered in the proposed product context. My responsibility was to help the business distinguish a sensible shortcut from a missing investigation. The period also brought me closer to commercial planning, where an uncertain development result could become a confident date or promise if its limits were poorly explained. Promotion to CTO made me accountable for that connection across the executive team, not only within engineering.

Reason for the move

Promoted to CTO in January 2022

Mandate

Translate measurement knowledge into products whose intended use and qualification can be explained

Outcomes

• Moved from laboratory assignments into continuing product responsibility
• Connected intended use with development evidence
• Worked across engineering and quality on the meaning of product claims

Decisions in context

I joined Dazqavi in September 2009 after twelve years in calibration services. The company employed 118 people and recorded ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2010. Twenty-two engineers worked through two leads within ₹2.6 crore function expense. The move changed the duration and audience of my responsibility. A laboratory report had a defined assignment; a product would be used repeatedly by people who had not participated in its development. I needed to think about how the intended measurement, qualification evidence and customer explanation remained connected after the design review ended. Colleagues in quality and commercial roles helped me see where a technically precise statement could still be misunderstood in use. The later engineering leadership role expanded that work across a broader portfolio. I carried forward the habit of asking what a proposed claim would mean to someone who saw the product but never saw the underlying development discussion.

Reason for the move

Promoted to head of engineering

Mandate

Manage laboratory delivery while keeping the assignment and interpretation of results explicit

Outcomes

• Connected service scheduling with technical review needs
• Explained differences between a completed assignment and the customer's further question
• Developed responsibility for people, expense and the clarity of reports

Decisions in context

I became laboratory manager in April 2003. Navzemi had 168 employees and ₹43 crore revenue for FY ending March 2004. My remit covered nineteen colleagues through three leads and ₹1.3 crore annual expense. Customer deadlines and the cost of repeat work now sat beside technical considerations in my daily decisions. I learned to explain why a completed assignment might leave a separate question about a customer's intended use. That explanation needed to be clear and respectful; it could not rely on the customer understanding every specialist term in a report. I also learned that managing a laboratory did not mean personally authorising every technical conclusion. Appropriate specialists retained their responsibilities. Moving to Dazqavi gave me the opportunity to work on the instrument itself and to follow the relationship between measurement purpose, design and qualification over a longer product-development cycle, rather than only through an individual service assignment.

Reason for the move

Joined an instrument maker to work on the product behind the measurement

Mandate

Carry out assigned measurement work and preserve the conditions needed for specialist review

Outcomes

• Learned to describe the scope and conditions of a measurement result
• Worked under senior technical review rather than implying independent approval
• Developed an interest in how customers interpret laboratory evidence

Decisions in context

I completed instrumentation engineering at Zerqathi Instrumentation College in June 1997 and joined Navzemi the following month. The firm had sixty-nine employees and ₹14 crore revenue for FY ending March 1998. I worked in an eight-person laboratory group with assigned technical duties, no staff to manage and no authority to commit expenditure. Senior specialists reviewed the work and authorised its conclusions. That discipline taught me to distinguish performing a task from possessing the authority to make every interpretation of its result. I became interested in the questions customers brought back after receiving a report, especially when they expected the document to settle a decision outside the original assignment. The experience did not make me an expert in every application. It taught me to make the scope visible and seek the right review. Promotion to management widened my responsibilities while leaving that distinction essential to the work.

Reason for the move

Promoted to laboratory manager