I work on research and strategy problems where economics, data, industry and institutions run into each other.

Most questions arrive labelled as one thing. A market question, a policy question, an operations question. The answer is usually somewhere else. A pricing problem turns out to be a logistics problem. A policy problem turns out to be a capacity problem. A market sizing question turns out to depend entirely on who controls distribution.

So the first job is rarely analysis. It is working out what kind of problem this actually is before committing to a method for solving it.

I start underneath.

For an industry, that means the suppliers, the technology, the infrastructure, the regulation, the trade flows and the capital it takes to enter. The company you can name is usually the least informative part of the system it sits in.

For a public system, it means the incentives, the constraints, the actors and the data behind it. Who decides, who pays, who gets measured. When those turn out to be three different people, that gap is usually the whole explanation.

The subjects look scattered. The thread is not. All of it is the same habit: work out how a system is actually put together, then use that to make a better decision inside it.

I graduated as an engineer, a B.Tech in Electronics and Communication at Jabalpur Engineering College, and moved from there into analytics, then into research and strategy.

The engineering matters less as a qualification than as a reflex. It left me expecting systems to have physical limits, and expecting claims to be checkable against something real.

Since then I have worked through analytics, research operations, large decision systems and public systems. Today the work sits mostly in sectoral and economic research: energy and fuels, steel, electronics and semiconductors, trade, and the public systems wrapped around all of them.