The question changed when a result became a product

The calibration record was genuine within our fictional case, and that made my original judgement harder to revisit. I had treated a properly documented reference as though it settled whether the instrument could support the customer's intended decision. The quality review asked a different question: was the uncertainty and behaviour of the proposed measurement suitable for that purpose? I knew the distinction as an engineer. As a technical executive facing a release timetable, I had failed to insist that the distinction remain visible. That experience changed the way I read a product proposal before endorsing it.

I grew up in Aizawl and completed a Bachelor of Engineering in Instrumentation at the fictional Zerqathi Instrumentation College in June 1997. In July I joined Navzemi Calibration Services as a calibration engineer. The company had sixty-nine employees and ₹14 crore revenue for FY ending March 1998. I belonged to an eight-person laboratory group, without supervisory duties or a personal spending mandate. Senior specialists reviewed the work and authorised its conclusions. My early education was in describing a result carefully enough that another person could understand what had actually been measured.

Promotion to laboratory manager came in April 2003. Navzemi then employed 168 people and recorded ₹43 crore revenue for FY ending March 2004. Nineteen colleagues worked through three leads within ₹1.3 crore annual function expense. Managing the laboratory brought scheduling, customer expectations and the cost of repeat work into the same conversation as technical evidence. I learned that a report could be accurate within its scope while a customer still needed a different question answered. Explaining that gap respectfully was part of the service; allowing an understandable misunderstanding to persist was not.

In September 2009 I moved to Dazqavi Measurement Systems as measurement engineering lead. The Nagpur instrument maker had 118 employees and ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2010. My twenty-two engineering colleagues worked through two leads within ₹2.6 crore annual function expense. Product development gave me a longer responsibility than completing a laboratory assignment. A measurement decision became part of an instrument used repeatedly by people who had not attended its design review. I became more interested in how intended use, qualification and product language remained connected after a design left the development team.

I became head of engineering in July 2015. Dazqavi employed 234 people and recorded ₹86 crore revenue for FY ending March 2016. Forty-four colleagues worked through four leads within ₹7.2 crore annual engineering expense. The growing product range brought more pressure to share components, shorten validation and use a successful result in a wider commercial argument. Some reuse was sensible, but it had to preserve the conditions under which the evidence remained relevant. I learned to ask which part of a proposed change was familiar and which part still required investigation, without treating every investigation as a reason to stop useful development.

My CTO appointment began in January 2022. The present company has 410 employees and ₹208 crore FY26 revenue. I lead sixty-eight research and engineering colleagues through five heads with ₹14.6 crore FY2026–27 operating expense. The approved ₹6.2 crore laboratory-capital programme is separate. The family investor owns 62% and the growth fund 38%; I have no personal holding. Sandeep Lorzethi is the CEO, and Noor Zemqavi leads quality. My technical seniority does not remove the need for independent assessment, nor does presenting to directors make me a statutory director.

The release review concerned twenty-four qualification results. Eighteen supported the intended purpose and six remained indeterminate. The ₹64 lakh cost was retained while the affected release waited for further assessment. I had to acknowledge that the presence of a calibration record had become a shortcut in my own reasoning. The correction did not mean calibration was unimportant. It meant that provenance, uncertainty and the use of the result needed to be considered together by qualified people, with the commercial promise waiting for that account.

Other cases tested different boundaries. Thirty-two of thirty-six prototypes completed a 720-hour endurance exercise, while four stopped. We retained ₹1.1 crore validation expense without converting those hours into a five-year field-life claim. In a defined eighty-event bench exercise, sixty-one disturbances were captured initially and seventy-three after ₹73 lakh redesign work. Seven misses remained. Those results described the exercise, not every customer's environment. An alternative component assessment cost ₹86 lakh and left eighteen of forty-eight assemblies outside the declared criteria; a nominal rating could not settle the product qualification.

I am now considering a first external board contribution. I registered in the IICA databank in March 2026, with the proficiency assessment still incomplete and no exemption claimed. Twenty-four days are provisionally available, subject to employer consent and the actual calendar. My experience is relevant to product claims, technical investment and the evidence behind management confidence. It is not a substitute for understanding another company's customers, financial position or collective governance duties. I would want to help directors examine what a proposed conclusion rests on while respecting the people responsible for making and releasing the product.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Mizo · Hindi · English