Imran Zevqhuri · Chief Technology Officer · India
I would help a board examine whether a product commitment is supported by evidence from the conditions it claims to cover. My cases include an acoustic inference I approved too readily, a route promise built from an incomplete dimension and a calendar-life statement unsupported by test duration. They give me practical ways to ask where a conclusion has travelled beyond its evidence. I would bring those questions into collective judgement while learning the enterprise's economics and wider responsibilities. The board should understand the material uncertainty and the work needed to address it without becoming the laboratory, design office or product-release authority. I would rely on colleagues with complementary commercial, financial and people expertise to challenge my own technical emphasis. A useful contribution would make a decision more intelligible and its remaining conditions more visible, rather than make every discussion another engineering review.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Product-development and qualification proposals presented through the CEO
January 2020 onward
Explains evidence scope and development resources; no director or committee-member status represented.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk committee considering product commitments, subject to eligibility and remit · Technology or investment committee examining qualification and development decisions |
I would explore one initial outside seat in an industrial product business that values a clear connection between engineering evidence and customer commitments. A risk, technology or investment committee might be relevant after its needs and eligibility requirements were examined. I do not claim committee-chair readiness from my CTO title. My fictional IICA registration began in April 2026, with assessment still unfinished and no exemption represented. The provisional twenty-three days must include reading, induction, travel and unusual demands as well as meetings. I would want the role to develop whole-enterprise judgement and permit useful participation beyond technical questions. A chair should expect me to challenge the basis of a product assurance while respecting the specialists and management team responsible for establishing it. The appointment would require consent, relationship review and a realistic account of the contribution the institution actually needs.
I supported a loaded-use acoustic statement after an unloaded demonstration. Nine of thirty assemblies later missed the project's criterion under loaded review, leading to a hold on 120 preproduction units, a ten-week delay and ₹48 lakh correction cost. I would explain the approval I gave and the inference it relied on. The board should understand the mismatch and its consequence without choosing a test method itself. The absence of a field recall or injury does not make the original judgement sound. A revised programme needs its own evidence before the enterprise can claim that the relevant condition has been established.
Seven of eighteen reviewed routes exposed a turning problem despite adequate folded doorway width. We funded ₹94 lakh to examine route geometry. I would ask whether management's proposition describes one opening, a configuration or the complete intended movement. A correct measurement can be useful while insufficient for the larger statement. Directors can examine that scope without calculating a route or assuming responsibility for a customer's site. The reviewed population must remain visible, and programme funding should not be presented as a completed redesign or universal access assurance. This case would help me test whether the board's understanding matches what the technical evidence actually represents.
A coating account used 240 and 360 accelerated test hours to propose two and three years in service. I withheld the three-year claim and supported a ₹57 lakh observation programme. The useful board question is what evidence establishes the relationship between the measured condition and the promised duration. A simple ratio does not supply that relationship. The controlled work can retain value within its intended scope, while a broader claim remains unsupported. Approval of observation is not its result. I would ask management to explain both what it knows and what the proposed programme still needs to demonstrate before the enterprise makes a calendar promise.
I would begin by learning the receiving enterprise's customers, product economics, people and responsibilities. I would follow selected commitments from the original proposition through approval, development and later reporting, looking for the point at which the evidence acquires its commercial meaning. I would listen to qualified product, quality, finance and commercial leaders through the appropriate governance channels. The aim would be to understand how the institution learns when an assumption changes, rather than arrive with a preferred testing programme from my own employer. I would ask the chair for feedback on whether my questions improve collective judgement without pulling the board into execution. Induction would need to address areas outside my technical background, including the enterprise's financial and sector context. A useful first year should broaden my perspective and establish dependable preparation, not be measured by how often I identify a familiar product-development pattern.
Before receiving confidential papers, I would disclose my executive appointment and employee-trust beneficiary status, together with relevant relationships involving Zervqani's working founders, investor, customers, suppliers and development partners. Qualified review would need to consider the actual role, applicable independence conditions and committee or directorship requirements. Product drawings, customer-site records and unpublished qualification results would remain protected. Similarity between two engineering questions would not justify transferring confidential material across institutions. I would discuss with the chair which deliberations the relationship review would exclude me from, and whether the remaining contribution justified accepting the seat. Consent and capacity would need reconsideration if relationships or executive demands changed. If the opportunity depended on access or time I could not responsibly provide, I would decline rather than let enthusiasm for an outside role weaken the account of my practical limitations.
My employment, employee-trust interest and relationships involving Zervqani's founders, investor, customers and suppliers require review. Having no individual shares or current statutory seat does not establish independence.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
Fictional preparation: IICA databank registration in April 2026. The proficiency assessment is unfinished; no pass or exemption is claimed.