Miriam TezvathiChief Product Officer · Essays & perspective

One moving date could not describe the household

I approved a relocation planner built around one moving date. It made the timeline orderly and the first screen easy to explain. In a study of thirty-two households, twenty-one described a phased move and eleven a single stage. Some people needed to begin work before the rest of their belongings or household could follow. Our product asked them to compress those different decisions into one date, then treated the awkward answers as exceptions. The simplified model was ours, and it was the part that needed to change.

I am Miriam Tezvathi, fictional CPO of Zevquri Move Planning in Coimbatore. We provide planning software and support licensed to employers and adult households, with 144 employees and ₹32 crore FY 26 revenue. Twenty-three product colleagues work through three leads within ₹3.8 crore FY 2026–27 operating expense and a separate ₹1.3 crore capital programme. Arun is CEO and Fatima leads service operations. Independent providers retain their own quotations, schedules and transport decisions; using our planner does not itself book or complete a move.

My thirty-year career began in service-design research. I now ask whose situation the product represents and whose authority a convenient screen may accidentally assume. An employer can fund access without needing a private household inventory. A person can describe belongings without being able or willing to photograph every item. A paused plan can preserve useful work without making an old provider quotation current again. These are product choices with commercial and operating consequences, not details to leave for the support team after the user has relied on the design.

A plan that can hold more than one stage

A ₹39 lakh redesign represented separate stages instead of forcing one moving date. In a distinct twelve-household planning pilot, nine completed the plan without assistance and three needed help. Those were planning-task outcomes, not completed relocations or evidence that every household prefers a phased move.

Sponsorship without a complete household view

Review of forty-eight prototype plans found seventeen employer views showing private-inventory detail beyond the intended scope. A ₹24 lakh permissions programme corrected sixteen and withheld the remaining preview pending resolution. This was a design review, not a claim that real household records had been disclosed.

More than one way to describe belongings

Fourteen of forty participants could not complete a photo-only inventory task. We spent ₹18 lakh adding text and optional reviewed voice input while keeping photographs optional. A separate later group completed twenty-seven of thirty-two tasks without assistance; five still needed help. The groups do not establish a controlled improvement or universal accessibility.

Current focus

Phased household planning, sponsor permissions, flexible inventory entry and resuming a plan without reviving expired provider commitments.

Conversations I welcome

A first external board contribution involving customer products or service coordination, subject to consent and fit. Fictional IICA registration March 2026, assessment passed September 2026; no exemption or statutory seat. Twenty-four provisional days.

Beyond the page

The record behind the perspective.

Formation

  • Bachelor of DesignQemvuli Design College · 1996
As CEO, I saw Miriam change the single-date model she had approved. She retained the simple path where it fitted while making room for households whose decisions genuinely happened in stages.
Arun QelzuniChief Executive Officer, Zevquri Move Planning — fictional colleague
The full record ↗

Contact

A first external board contribution involving customer products or service coordination, subject to consent and fit. Fictional IICA registration March 2026, assessment passed September 2026; no exemption or statutory seat. Twenty-four provisional days.

  • Board appointments
  • Advisory roles
Write to Miriam Contact page