Skip to website
Siddharth VelmankarChief Product Officer
Portrait of Siddharth Velmankar

Chief Product Officer · India

SiddharthVelmankar

A healthcare product has to fit the place and the work before its specification can become useful.

I entered packaging-development analysis at Tervanil Therapeutics in July 1994 after mechanical engineering studies at the fictional Mervathin College.

Open to
  • Board appointments
  • Speaking invitations
Read the profileBegin a conversation

A healthcare product has to fit the place and the work before its specification can become useful.

I develop product propositions for laboratories and healthcare workplaces where a dimension, compartment or installation condition can change what the equipment enables. I want those details understood before a broad feature list becomes the offer. The useful question is whether the chosen product fits a defined setting and task, with the limits and specialist assessments kept visible.

At the fictional Pravellen Devices in Pune, I lead ninety-six product colleagues through six direct reports with ₹31 crore delegated FY 2026–27 expense. Company revenue was ₹1260 crore in FY 2025–26, with 2600 current employees. My function does not replace engineering, clinical assessment, quality, regulatory, manufacturing or service authority. Product decisions connect customer needs with those responsibilities rather than presume that a commercial description settles them.

The record begins in packaging analysis in July 1994 and includes an opening-cue mistake I approved. Later cases concern a workstation’s footprint, storage for bulky packs, accessory choices and the prerequisites of installation. Each is fictional and bounded. Site acceptance does not establish a clinical benefit, and a prototype correction does not make a product universally suitable. I want the reader to see the work still required as clearly as the chosen design.

A 750-millimetre proposal met benches that could not accommodate it

Thirty-one of forty-two laboratories had available depth of six hundred millimetres or less. A 580-millimetre design went into site-fit review, with eleven of sixteen accepting and five needing another configuration. ₹9.6 crore supported the programme. The result concerns the reviewed settings and does not establish clinical performance, clearance or unrestricted fit.

A storage specification changed when the supplied packs entered the discussion

Twenty-nine of sixty-four site audits identified bulky sealed packs that the fixed-compartment concept could not accommodate. The mixed prototype retained twelve fixed and twelve adjustable compartments. Thirteen of eighteen pilot sites accepted the arrangement; five needed oversized storage. ₹4.2 crore funded product work, with no assertion about sterility or infection control.

The installation account retained the units that were still pending

The 2025 programme found seventy-two of 240 planned sites without confirmed prerequisites. We made readiness checks part of the offer and staged a ninety-unit pilot. Seventy-three were installed by the review and seventeen remained pending. The ₹6.3 crore expense supported that programme; the account claims neither a measured clinical outcome nor an unverified commercial improvement.

Current focus

I am examining the points where a product description passes responsibility to the customer without making the remaining work explicit. An accessory may require a compatibility assessment, a smaller footprint may still need clearance and a delivered unit may await site preparation. I want those conditions discussed as part of product scope so that sales and service colleagues can describe an offer the customer can actually evaluate.

Conversations I welcome

I would consider a discussion about healthcare-workflow product fit, portfolio scope or a prospective first board contribution. Any appointment would require preparation, employer agreement, relationship assessment and realistic time. This invented profile supplies no medical advice, equipment offer or regulatory assessment. An initial note should describe the product question without patient information, restricted drawings or customer procurement records.

96

Product colleagues

Six direct reports at October 2026; engineering, clinical and service functions separately led

₹31 Cr

Delegated FY 2026–27 product expense

Function budget, distinct from company revenue and manufacturing investment

32

Years in product development

Career begins July 1994; executive presentations to the board from July 2021

I want a product specification to describe work that can happen in the customer’s actual setting. A broad catalogue cannot compensate for a workstation that does not fit, storage that excludes the supplied pack or an installation whose prerequisites remain unresolved. I ask the product team to make those conditions part of the offer while preserving the assessments that engineering, quality, clinical and regulatory specialists must own.

Siddharth Velmankar

Chief Product Officer

Areas of stewardship

Where accountability has been mine.

  1. IWorkplace constraints in the product brief
  2. IIPhysical interactions and bounded prototype evidence
  3. IIIStorage and accessory configuration choices
  4. IVInstallation as part of the offered experience

Selected work

Decisions, and what they changed.

I

The workstation had to become smaller before its catalogue could become more ambitious

In 2023, a proposed receiving workstation at Pravellen had a depth of 750 millimetres.

The full account

II

The symmetric outer carton made the first opening less clear than I had assumed

At Tervanil in 2005, I approved a symmetric outer-carton prototype because it appeared orderly and consistent across the proposed range.

The full account

III

Twenty-four compartments were not useful if the supplied packs would not fit inside them

A 2017 cabinet proposal at Pravellen specified twenty-four fixed compartments.

The full account

In the words of others

Trusted by those who appoint.

Siddharth asked us to bring the bench measurements into the product decision before we defended the proposed workstation. The smaller design still went through site review, and the five settings needing another configuration stayed in the account.
Anagha VervankarFictional product-research colleague; participant in the 2023 workstation review
He accepted that the symmetry he preferred had obscured the opening cue. The revised prototype was better understood by some participants, but he did not remove the remaining confusion from the decision record.
Rohan KelvarneFictional packaging-development colleague; participant in the 2005 outer-carton review

The journal

Perspective, set down with care.

An invitation

Contact

I would consider a discussion about healthcare-workflow product fit, portfolio scope or a prospective first board contribution. Any appointment would require preparation, employer agreement, relationship assessment and realistic time. This invented profile supplies no medical advice, equipment offer or regulatory assessment. An initial note should describe the product question without patient information, restricted drawings or customer procurement records.

Open to
  • Board appointments
  • Speaking invitations
Write to Siddharth

office@siddharthvelmankar.example