Following software into the equipment it meets

Mandate

Make customer-product software work within an explicit account of equipment, dependencies and acceptance

Outcomes

• Funded hardware-revision compatibility and eligible offline-project work
• Established preview acceptance on defined customer-device configurations
• Completed a reproducible supplier build handover while deferring two unaccepted features

Decisions in context

The CTO appointment gives me responsibility for customer-product engineering while the CIO retains enterprise systems. I lead sixty-four employees and eighteen contractor positions through six leaders, with ₹18.2 crore operating expense and ₹7.8 crore approved product-engineering work in FY2026–27. Arvind owns enterprise recommendations, and I present the engineering account without a statutory seat. Mira leads quality work, involving the relevant manufacturers where hardware authority matters. The recent programmes have challenged assumptions that were convenient inside the team: that a model name establishes compatibility, that a cloud session belongs in front of every action and that a source delivery provides a working product. I want the portfolio to show both the capability obtained and the conditions still required. An outside board opportunity would need a different contribution, using those experiences to examine management's evidence rather than take over its engineering decisions.

Reason for the move

Current role; preparing for a first outside non-executive contribution

Mandate

Compare new customer features with the engineering needed to support continuing use

Outcomes

• Expanded attention to ordinary customer computers and older supported equipment
• Examined dependencies introduced by connected features
• Developed portfolio judgement across product work and maintenance

Decisions in context

The vice-presidential role widened my responsibility to forty-two employees and nine contractor positions with ₹10.6 crore annual operating expense. I reported to the COO and had to compare work whose benefits appeared in very different forms. A new feature was easy to demonstrate, while maintaining reliable use on an older supported machine was less visible. I learned to ask what a product decision would require of the equipment already in customers' hands. The same question applied to their computers and connections. A developer workstation could make a preview appear ready, and a shared online flow could introduce a dependency into an action previously performed locally. These were not reasons to avoid new features. They were reasons to make the intended audience and the continuing obligations explicit before judging the engineering portfolio only by the novelty of its next release.

Reason for the move

Promoted to chief technology officer

Mandate

Bring embedded-product discipline into software used by a varied consumer audience

Outcomes

• Learned the range of equipment and computers in continuing customer use
• Connected engineering assumptions with showroom and service experience
• Built a foundation for wider product-engineering leadership

Decisions in context

Moving to Veznori in September 2010 brought my instrument experience into a different relationship with the user. Eighteen employees and four contractor positions worked within a ₹3.3 crore annual operating remit. Customers used equipment across a wide range of ages and combined it with computers the engineering team had not chosen. Some machines continued to serve useful work long after their original software had received much attention. I learned to understand that use without making unlimited promises about support. Showroom and service colleagues helped explain what customers expected and where a technical qualification became difficult to communicate. The role made me more interested in the whole supported experience, from identifying the device to understanding the action the customer wanted to perform. That broader view prepared me for a portfolio in which new development and continuing use competed for the same engineering capacity.

Reason for the move

Promoted to vice-president of engineering

Mandate

Preserve the relationship between software behaviour and the physical revision it met

Outcomes

• Developed team leadership around revision-aware engineering
• Learned to distinguish a supplier demonstration from receiving-team acceptance
• Completed a part-time embedded-systems master's in November 2006

Decisions in context

As firmware lead from June 2003, I managed fourteen colleagues within ₹1.4 crore annual engineering expense under the engineering director. The work made physical revision differences part of everyday judgement. A commercial description could remain stable while a technical assumption changed, and the software team needed to know which relationship it was actually supporting. I also learned to examine supplier work in our own environment rather than treat a demonstration elsewhere as the end of acceptance. A part-time master's in embedded systems, completed in November 2006, deepened my technical foundation while I continued in the role. The appointment gave me a stronger sense of engineering accountability: lead the team, explain the evidence and keep specialist approvals visible. I moved to Veznori because I wanted to apply that discipline to products whose users would bring a much wider range of equipment and expectations.

Reason for the move

Moved into consumer connected-product leadership at Veznori

Mandate

Understand software behaviour on the actual instrument under senior engineering review

Outcomes

• Built a practical foundation in hardware-dependent software behaviour
• Learned to identify assumptions missing from a written specification
• Prepared for a later engineering-team leadership role

Decisions in context

I joined Torqemi in July 1997, one month after completing electronics engineering. I belonged to a seven-person group without direct reports or delegated spending. Senior engineers retained product approval, and my work was reviewed within that structure. The instrument on the bench was an important teacher because it could expose an assumption that looked harmless in a written specification. I learned to ask which revision I was working with and what evidence supported the expected behaviour. I also learned to distinguish my contribution from the approval authority of more experienced colleagues. Those habits became less automatic as my later roles moved further from individual devices, which is why I still value concrete engineering reviews. The beginning of my career gave me useful questions, but it did not remove the need to ensure those questions remained present in the processes I eventually led.

Reason for the move

Promoted to firmware lead