Chief Product Officer / India
EliasVezqarnthi
I grew up in Tiruchirappalli and completed a Bachelor of Design at the fictional Zevqarnthi College of Design in May 1995.
I believe
I approved a storage concept that made tools convenient at the van without asking how users would carry them to a job elsewhere. Seven of twelve users needed to carry their tools away. I learned to follow the work beyond the frame of our product before deciding which part of the customer's routine the design should organise.
— Elias Vezqarnthi
The work
In 2018 I approved a fixed-drawer prototype as the basis for our next mobile-workshop range. It made the vehicle interior orderly and gave each tool a place. A study of twelve adult service-business users then found seven carrying tools away from the van to the task, while five mainly worked beside the vehicle. The prototype served the storage location better than it served the whole working routine for the first group. The development team wanted to retain the fixed arrangement and offer a separate loose tool bag. That would preserve the prototype investment and keep the range easy to explain. I understood the appeal, but the proposal still asked users to transfer tools between two arrangements because our product assumed the work stayed at the vehicle. I recommended revising the brief to support fixed and lift-out options, with the actual engineering, handling and installation conditions reviewed by qualified owners. We committed ₹41 lakh to the revised product programme. The fixed path remained relevant to the five users whose work largely happened at the van; the seven observations informed a portable path rather than a conclusion that every customer wanted one. I accepted responsibility for approving the earlier brief before following the tools into the task. The response required more development and a more deliberate commercial choice than one neatly presented prototype. The result was a changed product direction, not evidence that the redesigned range had already improved productivity or sales. The twelve-user study did not establish the proportions of demand across the whole market. We also did not treat a lift-out concept as automatic approval for carrying any load or installing it in any vehicle. Those questions remained part of the qualified product and application work rather than consequences inferred from the research finding. I would now observe the transition between storage and use before deciding which activity the product should organise. A design can look successful when the demonstration begins and ends at its own boundary. The important question is what the customer must do immediately outside that boundary to make it useful. In this case, the cost of revising the brief was justified by a clear difference in working situations, while the commercial and technical results still required their own evidence. The lesson was to change the product question I had approved, not ask users to become better at fitting their work into it.
The 2022 compatibility programme covered eighteen vehicle configurations proposed for a storage-module catalogue. Six had been validated for the defined product and twelve remained under review. A broad category description made the offer appear suitable across all eighteen. The product team had a familiar name for the vehicle class, but that name did not establish the relevant dimensions, installation conditions or application evidence for each configuration. The commercial sponsor wanted to keep the broad catalogue and rely on installers to resolve individual details. That would make the offer easier to find and avoid presenting the range as incomplete. I chose to narrow the stated compatibility to the six examined configurations while allocating ₹68 lakh to the remaining review. An installer should not have to discover after selection that the product's apparent fit had been inferred from a category rather than established for the actual configuration. The programme kept the twelve pending cases visible. Pending did not mean unsuitable, and the six validated cases did not establish every vehicle approval, loading condition or future model variation. Qualified engineering, installation and vehicle-use owners retained those decisions. The product account identified the scope that had been examined and the route for reviewing a request outside it, instead of allowing a catalogue label to become a universal technical assurance. The consequence was a narrower immediate offer and a funded review commitment. We did not claim that all twelve pending configurations later passed or that the change increased conversion, reduced incidents or eliminated returns. The programme cost belonged in the decision alongside the commercial inconvenience of giving customers a less expansive answer. The evidence supported a compatibility distinction, not a complete account of every operating result that might follow from it. I would agree the configuration evidence required for a catalogue entry before treating breadth as a product objective. A useful range can grow through verified additions; it need not begin by implying that every intended application is already supported. The CPO's task is to connect that evidence with the commercial choice and the work needed to extend it. The six established cases and twelve unresolved ones should remain distinguishable until the responsible review changes the position. A clean category name is helpful for navigation, but it should not carry more authority than the product team can substantiate.
The 2023 service review examined forty selected returns. Twenty-seven concerned hinge issues and thirteen involved cabinet-body damage. A proposal described the next product as repairable through a replacement hinge kit. That could address a useful class of service work, but the existence of a replaceable part did not establish the appropriate response for every returned unit or resolve damage elsewhere in the cabinet. The service sponsor wanted a broad repair message because customers disliked replacing a whole assembly for a small fault. I agreed with that aim and rejected a different suggestion to leave the design unchanged because not every case could be repaired in the same way. The product decision was to develop an assessed hinge-repair route, with the body-damage cases remaining subject to their own qualified judgement. The offer needed to describe the scope of the route rather than make repairability an unqualified property of every future condition. We allocated ₹32 lakh to the product and service programme, including the defined replacement-part arrangement and the review needed to decide when it was appropriate. Qualified engineering and service owners retained assessment and release. The narrative provides no repair procedure or instruction for an actual cabinet. We did not automatically classify all twenty-seven hinge cases as completed repairs, and the thirteen body-damage cases were not made to disappear into a general success count. The result was a more specific service option with an explicit boundary. It did not establish a field failure rate, because the forty selected returns were not the whole installed population. Nor did the existence of a repair path prove a quantified reduction in waste, cost or environmental impact. Those outcomes would require an account of the actual work and its consequences. The programme added a support obligation that the enterprise had to fund rather than treating a replaceable component as a costless feature. I would now define the assessment, part supply and responsibility around a repair claim at the same time as the product feature. A design that can be opened is not automatically a service that can be delivered reliably in every case. The useful choice was to create a credible route for a defined problem while keeping the conditions it could not answer visible. That gives customers a more honest offer and service colleagues a clearer task than a broad promise whose limits appear only after a damaged product arrives.
In 2024 we reviewed assembly arrangements with thirty selected buyers. Nineteen had suitable workshop space for the proposed flat-pack product, while eleven did not. The compact package was attractive for distribution and made the catalogue price easier to present. For the second group, however, the product had moved an essential task into a setting they could not readily provide. The offer described the parts but underplayed the work required to turn them into a usable module. Operations preferred the flat-pack route because it used less shipping space and kept factory work consistent. I did not propose removing it for the nineteen buyers whose circumstances supported it. Instead, I recommended a factory-assembled option with the actual resource consequence visible in the product and commercial account. The choice should be made before purchase, not discovered when a customer opens a package and looks for an assembly space that the demonstration had assumed. The ₹43 lakh programme developed that option alongside the existing path. For the reviewed packaging design, the assembled module occupied an additional 0.18 cubic metres in shipment. We retained that volume difference rather than claim that moving work into the factory was free of logistics consequences. It did not establish a universal freight price, fuel effect or emissions result. Qualified engineering and installation owners still determined the product's actual assembly and application requirements. The outcome was a more explicit choice about who performs the work and where. The thirty-buyer review did not prove a market-wide preference, and the existence of the option did not establish that every customer selected or received it. No measured improvement in completion time, returns or revenue was claimed. The enterprise accepted additional product and operating complexity in order to avoid presenting one distribution format as equally usable in two different customer situations. I would ask about the work transferred by a packaging decision before treating compactness as an uncomplicated product benefit. The space saved in transit can be useful, but the customer's assembly effort is also part of the proposition. A CPO should bring both into the choice and allow the relevant operating owners to examine what each path requires. The product becomes more understandable when the buyer can see the task and the consequence before committing, rather than infer that a smaller box means a simpler route to use.
The 2025 range review covered forty-eight finish-and-handle combinations. Twelve had received orders during the reviewed twelve months and thirty-six had not. The initial recommendation was to remove every unselected option and present the smaller catalogue as a direct inventory saving. The order history was useful, but it did not establish future demand or show that each catalogue combination corresponded to stock that could immediately be eliminated. Manufacturing wanted a more manageable range, while commercial colleagues worried that removing options would weaken the offer. I supported a narrower standard range but asked the team to separate the evidence from the decision. We retained the twelve ordered combinations as standard, selected six of the thirty-six unselected combinations for a made-to-order path and withdrew the remaining thirty. The choice used product and commercial judgement in addition to the historical counts; the six were not claimed to have demonstrated demand merely because we retained them. The ₹52 lakh programme addressed the range, its presentation and the associated operating arrangements. The made-to-order path needed its own conditions rather than look like an immediately available standard item. Service responsibilities for installed products remained with the appropriate owners even where a new-sale option was withdrawn. The change did not erase a customer's earlier purchase or automatically settle the availability of every replacement part. The outcome was twelve standard choices, six made-to-order choices and thirty withdrawn combinations. We did not report the thirty-six empty order histories as proof of zero future demand or infer a financial saving by multiplying removed options by an assumed stock cost. Actual inventory, service and commercial effects required their own evidence. The trade-off was a smaller immediate choice and continued work to explain the exceptions and support obligations that a simple catalogue count could hide. I would now define the decision that an option review is intended to support before presenting the historical ranking. An order count can inform where the enterprise commits standard capacity, but it does not choose the strategy by itself. The useful question is which variety the business can support credibly, at what cost and through which path. A narrower range can be a considered product decision without pretending that the future has already been measured or that every obligation associated with a withdrawn choice has disappeared.
Others say
In this fictional case, Elias acknowledged that the fixed-drawer brief had followed the van rather than the whole task. He brought the different user situations and the ₹41 lakh response to the enterprise discussion, including the additional product work, instead of asking customers to adapt to a prototype we had already approved.
The invented assembled option kept its additional shipment volume in the decision. Elias retained the flat-pack route for customers with workshop space while making the alternative's operating consequence explicit. Product choice did not become a request for operations to absorb an unmentioned task or an unmeasured logistics benefit.
Point of view
An invitation
I welcome product-leadership and advisory conversations involving physical products with meaningful fit, assembly and support choices. For a first statutory board role, I could provisionally allocate eighteen days after agreeing the remit and calendar. I registered in the IICA databank in May 2026, have not passed the proficiency assessment and claim no exemption. I hold no statutory company seat; an actual opportunity would need current preparation, relationship and capacity review.
office@eliasvezqarnthi.example