SVP – Digital Platforms — Powertrain Division

The mandate

Manufacturing records, supplier lots, calibration versions, diagnostic codes, service repairs and vehicle-use data sit in separate systems with inconsistent identifiers. Engineers often analyse extracts weeks after a pattern emerges, while dealers replace assemblies before causal evidence is available. The board has created an urgent digital-platform role to establish a trusted thread across the lifecycle.

The SVP – Digital Platforms will lead approximately 650 employees and material partners and a technology perimeter near ₹3,250 crore. Scope includes powertrain data products, integration, digital thread, warranty analytics, dealer and engineering workflow, platform reliability, access and vendor management. Quality owns defect decisions; engineering owns design changes; service owns customer repair. The SVP makes timely, governed evidence available to each.

The solution is not a new dashboard. Identifiers, ownership and correction must connect a part and software configuration from supplier and plant to vehicle and repair. Data of different confidence should not be blended silently, and technicians need decision support integrated into work rather than another portal. The leader must prioritise use cases where faster evidence changes containment, diagnosis or repair.

Vehicle and customer data require purpose, consent, retention and security controls. The platform should minimise information while preserving engineering value and distinguish fleet patterns from conclusions about an individual driver or vehicle.

Analytical models and diagnostic recommendations require governance proportionate to their use. A ranking used to direct investigation is different from an automated instruction to replace a component or restrict a vehicle. The SVP will define validation, human review, monitoring and rollback for each decision type and test performance across vehicle age, duty cycle and service conditions. Where a model’s confidence is weak, the workflow must show that uncertainty rather than converting it into a definitive repair path that transfers cost to the customer.

Supplier participation requires controlled data rights. Sharing field patterns can accelerate root-cause analysis, but raw vehicle information may reveal customer or competitor-sensitive context beyond the component issue. The platform will provide purpose-limited evidence, record onward use and preserve the manufacturer’s ability to correct or withdraw erroneous data.

Why this seat is open

No existing leader owns lifecycle evidence across manufacturing, engineering, warranty and service technology. The board approved urgent new hiring before additional point solutions deepen fragmentation. There is no predecessor. A permanent SVP is sought within eight weeks, with interim data work limited to approved containment use cases.

What you will own

• Define authoritative identifiers and data contracts across part, supplier, build, software, vehicle and repair.
• Create governed warranty and engineering data products with owners, quality and lineage.
• Prioritise workflows where faster evidence changes containment, diagnosis or design.
• Integrate insights into dealer, quality and engineering decisions with feedback on outcomes.
• Establish access, purpose, retention and security for vehicle and customer-related data.
• Build reliable integration and analytics platforms and retire conflicting extracts and tools.
• Make platform and vendor economics visible by product and use case.
• Develop data product, engineering and reliability successors.

The first 12 months

Within 45 days, the SVP will identify the highest-cost warranty cohorts, data gaps and live containment decisions. By day 90, the executive committee should approve a digital-thread architecture, two priority use cases and correction ownership for critical identifiers.

By month eight, pilot workflows should connect supplier, build, configuration and repair evidence and deliver actionable patterns into quality and dealer systems. At least one conflicting extract or legacy warranty tool will be retired, and user decisions will feed back into product measures.

At year-end, time from emerging pattern to validated containment should improve by 40%, repeat repair in pilot cohorts by 25% and avoidable warranty cost by at least ₹150 crore annualised. Critical data products should meet service and lineage objectives, with no material privacy, security or dealer-workflow failure.

What the board will measure

• Evidence reaching quality and service decisions earlier.
• Warranty and repeat-repair outcomes attributable to changed workflows.
• Authoritative lifecycle identifiers and fewer conflicting data products.
• Responsible use of vehicle, dealer and customer information.
• Platform economics, adoption and technical succession.

The person

You are a digital-platform, automotive data or industrial analytics executive who has connected field performance with product and manufacturing evidence. You understand warranty and diagnostic workflows and can govern data without taking quality accountability. Relevant experience includes connected vehicles, industrial IoT, aviation maintenance or medical-device surveillance.

You bring 18–22 years of experience and have controlled at least ₹1,850 crore while leading technology affecting 450 employees or more. The board will examine a data pattern that changed containment, an identifier problem you solved and a platform whose use reduced real lifecycle cost.

The role is onsite in Bengaluru with regular plant, engineering and dealer engagement.

Compensation and terms

The digital-platform role offers ₹2.2–3.0 crore fixed and a performance variable. Measures cover decision speed, warranty value, adoption, trust, reliability and succession. Data volume alone is excluded. Final terms reflect current mix and the approved platform perimeter.

Confidentiality

The powertrain products, warranty cohorts, data and systems are confidential. Detailed evidence follows qualification and an undertaking. Bengaluru and the rounded cost opportunity must not be used to identify the organisation.