Chief Technology Officer — Data And Evaluation Platform

The mandate

Funding has accelerated demand for a data and evaluation platform whose architecture was designed for a smaller operating envelope. Customer evidence and engineering experience now point to a choice that will determine the next growth phase: continue extending the current stack, or move deliberately towards a more modular target architecture. Both paths carry cost and migration consequences. The Chief Technology Officer will make the decision explicit and turn it into an executable engineering plan.

The platform generates or supports approximately ₹700 crore in AI product and services revenue and involves roughly 420 employees and material partners across India, Gurugram and the wider operating region. Its scope includes data ingestion, curation, evaluation tooling, orchestration, developer experience, reliability and customer integrations. Variation in datasets, model types and evidence requirements is rising. Without architectural discipline, each new demand adds latency and operational burden.

The role joins technology vision with delivery accountability. You will decide which capabilities form the durable core, where extensibility is essential and which customer requirements should remain outside the platform. A compelling design that cannot be migrated, operated or funded is not a strategy. The board needs quantified options, sequencing and evidence that engineering choices reinforce commercial differentiation.

Why this seat is open

This is a planned replacement supported by an agreed handover from the incumbent. The organisation has reserved four to six months for assessment and diligence so that the post-funding scale-up remains stable during succession. Communications to engineers, customers and partners will be sequenced after the preferred candidate and transition are agreed. This permanent onsite role is based in Gurugram and answers to the Group Chief Executive or nominated executive committee sponsor.

What you will own

You will create a common architectural baseline, including performance, reliability, developer productivity, cost and technical-debt evidence. Competing proposals must be tested through representative workloads and customer journeys rather than advocacy. The selected target state should define data boundaries, interfaces, evaluation reproducibility, observability, resilience and the treatment of legacy components.

Migration planning is a central responsibility. You will choose slices that can deliver value early, preserve reversibility and avoid prolonged dual running. Engineering capacity, platform adoption and customer commitments must be reconciled in one roadmap. Exceptions need explicit expiry and owners; acquisition of new tools or capacity should be governed by whole-life economics.

The engineering system also requires attention. You will improve how work enters teams, how design decisions are recorded and how reliability and security are built into delivery. Leaders should own outcomes across components rather than optimise local backlogs. Talent allocation must favour the hardest platform constraints, while development and succession reduce dependence on a small number of architects.

Customers and commercial leaders need clarity about what the platform supports. You will establish technical qualification for important opportunities and credible service expectations. Product, data and risk colleagues should participate in architecture choices that alter evidence or customer obligations, without turning design governance into consensus by committee.

The first 12 months

During the first 90 days, validate the architecture debate with facts. Benchmark representative workloads, inspect incidents and delivery delays, assess technical debt and map the largest customer commitments. Review the leadership team and scarce skills. Present the board with options, economic ranges, migration risks and an explicit decision gate rather than a single unchallenged recommendation.

From months four to nine, mobilise the target architecture, retire low-value work and deliver initial migration slices. Establish engineering and reliability measures that teams can influence. Fill pivotal roles, simplify governance and demonstrate improvement in velocity or stability on a meaningful customer journey. Funding should follow achieved evidence at each stage.

By the end of the year, a funded target architecture should be visibly under way, with higher engineering velocity and improved reliability across more than a pilot. The next capital and talent plan must reflect actual adoption, migration learning and downside actions. Customers should understand the platform direction without being exposed to internal uncertainty.

What the board will measure

First-year delivery should remain within 10% of approved investment and outcome expectations, with variance anticipated through leading indicators. Three consecutive quarterly forecasts need to align revenue, cash, customer migrations, engineering capacity and hiring. A named architectural constraint must show quantified improvement from a credible baseline.

Material reliability, security and migration issues should close by their governance dates with sustained evidence. At least 90% of critical engineers should remain, and ready-now cover should exist for 70% of CTO direct reports. Any severe customer or platform escalation older than 30 days requires explicit executive disposition.

The person

You are a CTO, VP Engineering or Chief Architect with 22–28 years in AI, enterprise software, data infrastructure, cloud, analytics or applied research. You have carried at least ₹800 crore in P&L, budget, book or accountable technology portfolio and led a minimum of 420 people in a comparable environment.

Your record includes a consequential architecture decision made during rapid growth, followed by migration rather than presentation alone. You can show numerical movement in developer productivity, reliability, cost or customer adoption and explain the trade-offs rejected. The board will test how you changed course when evidence challenged the original plan. References should isolate your technical and organisational judgement.

Compensation and terms

The anticipated package is ₹3.2–4.6 crore fixed plus performance variable and LTI, calibrated to final platform scope and the candidate’s current mix. Standard performance and vesting conditions govern long-term awards. A notice period of up to six months is acceptable. The post has recurring exposure to the group board and its risk and people committees.

Confidentiality

Architecture decisions, customer dependencies and the succession plan remain confidential. Identifying information will follow mutual interest under an undertaking; public operating details have been combined and rounded.