sagarika

The Organizational Kalman Filter: Finding the Signal Your Leaders’ Dashboards Can’t Detect

Leave a Comment / Aerospace Concepts For Revolutionizing Management /

An aerospace-inspired system for a new way to lead, measure, and decide in complex, noisy environments. The Organizational Kalman Filter: Finding the Signal Your Leaders’ Dashboards Can’t Detect July 11, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale The leadership dashboard excels at painting a detailed picture of activity — velocity charts, project statuses, engagement scores. It tells you what the organization is doing, but not the true condition of the system producing those results. The most critical information isn’t in this flurry of data; it’s a quiet signal your dashboard was never designed to detect. It’s the faint signal of burnout in your most dedicated team, the subtle decay of cohesion after a re-org, or the slow, almost invisible drift of a key project away from its strategic purpose.  This is why you can walk out of a strategy meeting where every chart is green, yet feel a deep, unshakable sense that something is wrong. That feeling in your gut isn’t just anxiety; it’s you, the human leader, detecting the very signal your instruments missed. You’re left trying to navigate by feel because the tools you rely on are fundamentally broken, designed to track the outputs of activity, not the underlying signal of true organizational health. They fail us in three critical ways:  1. They Are Lagging Indicators  Quarterly engagement surveys, employee turnover rates, and even post-project reviews are autopsies. They are incredibly useful for understanding what has already happened, but they are useless for navigating the present. Relying on them to steer your team is like trying to drive a car forward by looking only in the rearview mirror. You’ll only know you’ve hit a wall long after the impact.  2. The Data is Noisy and Unreliable  So, we turn to real-time data. We check the KPIs, read the chat channels, and rely on our own intuition. But this data is full of noise. “Gut feel” is notoriously biased. Direct feedback is often filtered through politics or fear. Even hard numbers can be misleading—a team can hit its velocity targets for weeks while quietly accumulating a mountain of technical debt that will bring them to a grinding halt next month.  3. The Fatal Flaw: Our Metrics Are Disconnected  This is the most dangerous problem of all. Your car’s dashboard is a brilliant system because it shows you the connections between things. It shows that driving at 120 mph directly and rapidly depletes your fuel. It shows that running the engine hot will eventually lead to failure.  Our business dashboards don’t do this. They show us metrics in isolation. They celebrate a rising velocity chart but fail to show the corresponding drop in the team’s “well-being reserve.” They track project milestones but don’t show the “cohesion cost” of the arguments and friction it took to get there.  We are left to guess at the trade-offs. We are forced to wonder if our push for speed is creating a burnout problem that will cost us our best people.  We are flying blind. And in today’s world, that is a risk no leader can afford to take.  So, how do we fix this? How do we navigate the fog of organizational life? The answer, remarkably, comes from one of the most demanding fields of human endeavor: aerospace engineering.  The Aerospace Solution: A New Way to See  In aerospace, guiding a satellite through space or tracking a missile with imperfect sensor data is a life-or-death problem. You can’t just “trust your gut.” You need a system that can sift through noisy, incomplete information to find the truth. Engineers solved this decades ago with a powerful and elegant algorithm: the Kalman Filter (“Kalman Filtering is a recursive algorithm used to estimate the state of a dynamic system from a series of noisy measurements.”). And we can use the exact same logic to guide our organizations.  To understand it, let’s forget about satellites for a moment and use a simpler analogy: you are tracking a city bus on a foggy day. You can’t see it clearly, but you have two sources of information:  Your Prediction: You know the bus route and its general speed. Based on where it was five minutes ago, you can make an educated guess about where it probably is now.  Your Measurement: Every so often, you get a faint GPS signal on your phone. The signal is “noisy”— it might be off by 50 meters, but it’s still a real piece of information from the outside world.  What do you do? You don’t blindly trust your prediction, and you don’t blindly trust the noisy GPS signal. You instinctively blend them. You take your prediction and nudge it a little bit in the direction of the new GPS measurement. The Kalman Filter is simply the mathematical process that does this blending perfectly. It works in a continuous two-step loop:  Step 1: The Prediction Step   First, the algorithm makes a prediction based on its last known state and any actions you’ve taken. It’s the “common sense” step.  The Equation: Predicted State (x̂⁻) = (A * Previous State) + (B * Control Input)  This equation says our new predicted state is a combination of how the system naturally behaves (A * Previous State) plus the effect of any specific leadership actions we took (B * Control Input). A and B tell how state changes with time and how control affects state.  Step 2: The Update Step   Next, the algorithm gets a new measurement from the real world (your noisy data). It then compares this measurement to its prediction and makes a correction.  The Equation: New Estimate = Prediction + Gain * (Measurement – Prediction)  • This is the heart of the filter. It takes the prediction and adjusts it based on the “prediction error” (the difference between the measurement and the prediction).  • The Kalman Gain is the magic “trust dial.” It’s a value between 0 and 1 that decides how much we trust the new measurement. A high gain means we trust the new data

The Organizational Kalman Filter: Finding the Signal Your Leaders’ Dashboards Can’t Detect Read More »

Optimizing Space Mission Planning: Traditional Methods vs AI-Augmented Approaches

Leave a Comment / Aerospace, Technology & Sustainability /

AI isn’t the silver bullet for space mission planning — its true value emerges only when paired with human intuition, strategic collaboration, and adaptive resilience. Optimizing Space Mission Planning: Traditional Methods vs AI-Augmented Approaches Data Source: Kaggle Tools Used: Python, Power BI Power BI Dashboard:  View my end-to-end analytical process: May 9, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale This project focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of AI-augmented mission planning methods across various space agencies and mission complexities. The analysis compares traditional and AI-augmented planning methods in terms of mission planning time, knowledge transfer efficiency, and contingency coverage. Key areas explored include the evolution of AI-enhanced planning metrics, the differences in AI adoption between NASA, ESA, and JAXA, and the varying impact of AI across mission scenarios. By identifying strengths and areas for improvement, this project aims to provide actionable insights to optimize the integration of AI for future space missions, ensuring more efficient, resilient, and adaptive planning strategies. How Effectively Does AI-Augmented Planning Enhance Mission Planning Time, Knowledge Transfer Efficiency, and Contingency Coverage Across Different Complexity Levels, Mission Sequences, and Mission Phases? This analysis demonstrates how AI-augmented planning improves mission speed, knowledge continuity, and contingency preparation. It highlights where AI adds maximum value across mission complexities and phases, enabling space agencies to better manage risks, optimize operations, and enhance the reliability of critical missions. The following table presents a high-level summary comparison of planning time between Traditional and AI-Augmented methods, grouped by complexity levels (Low, Medium, High, Critical). From the analysis, it is evident that AI significantly reduces mission planning time across all complexities, with the percentage improvement increasing as mission complexity rises. This trend indicates that AI-Augmented method becomes more beneficial as missions grow in complexity, suggesting that for highly critical missions such as Mars expeditions or Deep Space explorations, AI-driven planning can notably accelerate mission readiness, reduce operational delays, and minimize cost overruns. The high-level summary comparison of knowledge transfer efficiency between Traditional and AI-Augmented methods, grouped by mission sequences (1 to 5) shown in table. The analysis highlights that AI consistently improves knowledge transfer efficiency across all mission sequences. This indicates that AI tools help preserve, retain, and transfer critical operational knowledge more effectively over time, which is particularly crucial in extended mission campaigns like multi-stage Mars colonization efforts, where continuity of expertise and learnings across missions is essential for sustained success. Moreover, the following analysis provides a high-level summary comparison of contingency coverage between Traditional and AI-Augmented methods, grouped by mission phases (Launch, Transit, Orbital, Surface, Return). From the analysis, it is observed that while the improvement is moderate in early mission phases (11% in Launch, 17% in Transit), it becomes significantly higher in later phases (29.40% in Surface and 29.02% in Return). This finding suggests that AI-augmented planning method can be advantages in later, more unpredictable stages of the mission, where the risk environment is more dynamic and complex. Thus, focusing AI integration during mid-to-late mission phases can drastically enhance mission safety and robustness. Through this detailed analysis, it becomes clear that AI-Augmented Planning methods substantially improve mission planning quality across critical dimensions such as speeding up complex decision-making, enhancing knowledge continuity, and strengthening mission resilience during risky phases. By leveraging AI, space agencies can make mission planning faster, safer, and more reliable, ultimately paving the way for more ambitious and sustainable space exploration endeavors. How Do NASA, ESA, and JAXA Differ in the Effectiveness of AI-Augmented Mission Planning Under Similar Mission Conditions (Medium Complexity and Mars Missions)? This analysis reveals how NASA, ESA, and JAXA vary in AI-augmented mission planning effectiveness under similar conditions. By comparing their strengths and improvements, it highlights how organizational readiness, technological maturity, and operational focus influence AI’s impact, guiding agencies on optimizing AI integration for mission success. To understand the differences in AI-augmented planning effectiveness among NASA, ESA, and JAXA, a focused comparison was conducted. This analysis was carefully limited to missions with Medium Complexity and Mars as the mission type, ensuring a fair basis for comparison across the three agencies. The controlled conditions helped eliminate variability arising from differences in mission type or complexity, offering a more accurate picture of each agency’s planning practices and their response to AI integration. Initial examination of mission interests showed distinct agency priorities, with ESA favoring Lunar missions, JAXA showing a greater focus on Mars, and NASA concentrating on Deep Space and Earth Orbit missions. Complexity analysis further revealed that NASA and ESA engaged more frequently in low and medium complexity missions, whereas JAXA’s missions leaned towards higher and critical complexity. This backdrop provided important context for interpreting the agencies’ performance under AI-augmented methods. Agencies Mission Interest Agencies Mission Complexity Count A comparative evaluation based on Medium Complexity Mars Missions highlighted that under traditional methods, JAXA led across several key planning areas including planning time, resource efficiency, knowledge transfer, adaptability, and quality assessment, although it lagged slightly in contingency coverage compared to NASA. However, with the implementation of AI-augmented planning, all three agencies demonstrated significant improvements across planning metrics. Notably, ESA exhibited the highest percentage improvement relative to its traditional baseline, followed by NASA and then JAXA. Despite a time gap between missions (ESA and NASA missions in 2018 vs. JAXA’s mission in 2023), the similarity in improvement percentages suggests that ESA and NASA had already integrated highly capable AI systems years earlier, raising intriguing considerations about the technological maturity across agencies. Traditional Comparison Method Across Agencies Performance Percentage Increase Using AI-Augmented Method Further, a detailed phase-wise comparison was performed, breaking down planning performance across the five key mission phases: Launch, Transit, Orbit, Surface, and Return. Analysis of planning time revealed that NASA traditionally managed lower planning times compared to JAXA and ESA across most phases. Even after AI augmentation, NASA maintained a slight advantage in planning time efficiency, although all agencies showed noticeable improvements and the gap among them narrowed. Similarly, evaluation of contingency coverage across mission phases showed that NASA historically maintained stronger contingency plans compared to the others. Post AI-augmentation,

Optimizing Space Mission Planning: Traditional Methods vs AI-Augmented Approaches Read More »

72nd & Struggling: What’s Holding India Back in Global AI Race?

Leave a Comment / Blog /

Country’s AI readiness is less bout falling behind and more about failing to align  their infrastructure, policies, and talent with the future they want to create. 72nd & Struggling: What’s Holding India Back in Global AI Race? May 8, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept; it’s rapidly reshaping economies, societies, and governance worldwide. For a nation like India, with its vast potential and aspirations, harnessing AI effectively is crucial for future growth and development. However, a recent analysis based on the 2023 AI Preparedness Index (AIPI) places India at 72nd globally. While India is making strides, this ranking signal a significant gap compared to leading nations. This isn’t just about technology; it’s about the entire ecosystem supporting it. The analysis reveals that national AI preparedness isn’t solely driven by GDP, but more profoundly by foundational pillars: Digital Infrastructure, Regulation & Ethics, Human Capital, and Innovation. Understanding where India stands on these fronts, based on the 2023 data, is key to charting a path forward. Why Are Some Countries More Prepared Than India? The analysis highlights stark correlations between AI readiness and specific national capabilities: Digital Infrastructure (Correlation with AIPI: 0.96): This is the bedrock. It’s not just about having internet users but the quality, reach, and robustness of the entire digital ecosystem like high-speed connectivity, cloud computing capacity, data centers, and crucially, secure servers (correlation with AIPI is 0.46, indicating this specific area might be less dominant but still part of the whole). Nations leading the AIPI charts (like Singapore, Denmark, US) boast highly mature, reliable, and widespread digital infrastructure. Regulation & Ethics (Correlation with AIPI: 0.94): Trust is paramount. Countries with clear, well-defined, and enforced regulations governing AI including covering data privacy, algorithmic transparency, accountability, and ethical use, are far better prepared. Strong governance builds public confidence and provides a stable environment for AI deployment and innovation. This factor is almost as critical as infrastructure. Again Singapore, Denmark, US and with other countries having high AIPI are leading in this area. Human Capital & Labor Market Policies (Correlation with AIPI: 0.91): AI needs skilled people, not just elite coders, but a broad workforce capable of developing, deploying, managing, and working alongside AI systems. This requires strong education systems, continuous learning programs, AI-specific training, and labor policies that support transitions and reskilling. Innovation & Economic Integration (Correlation with AIPI: 0.88): A thriving AI nation needs a dynamic innovation ecosystem like robust R&D, vibrant startups, strong university-industry links, and active participation in the global technology landscape. This fosters the creation and adoption of cutting-edge AI solutions. US is a remarkable example of this as it has also exceptional history in aerospace industry. The GDP Factor: While GDP per capita shows a strong positive correlation (0.79) indicating wealthier nations can invest more in these pillars however GDP growth shows a weak negative correlation of -0.19 with AIPI. This is crucial: rapid economic expansion alone doesn’t guarantee AI readiness. Targeted, strategic investment in the core pillars matters more than sheer growth momentum. India’s AI Adoption: Where are the Key Bottlenecks? Applying this framework to India’s 72nd rank (based on 2023 data) reveals specific areas needing attention: Digital Infrastructure – Beyond Access: India has made enormous strides in digital access (internet users, mobile penetration). However, the analysis’s distinction between access and overall infrastructure quality is pertinent. Many users, even in major cities like Mumbai, experienced inconsistent speeds, patchy reliability, and latency issues. Furthermore, areas like high-performance computing infrastructure, widespread fiber connectivity, and data center density likely lag behind top-ranked nations. While initiatives like Digital India are foundational, the quality and uniformity of infrastructure across the nation require significant upgrades to truly support large-scale, sophisticated AI deployment. Secure server infrastructure might also need bolstering, though the primary focus should be on the broader ecosystem quality. Regulation & Ethics – The Need for Clarity and Speed: India is actively discussing AI regulation, but a comprehensive, clear, and agile framework is still evolving. The high correlation of Regulation & Ethics with AIPI underscores the urgency. Ambiguity can stifle innovation and deployment, while inadequate safeguards risk eroding public trust. Striking the right balance between fostering innovation and ensuring ethical, responsible AI use through robust policies is critical. Human Capital – Converting Potential into Skill: India has a vast pool of young talent and a strong IT services sector. However, translating this demographic potential into AI-specific skills on a scale is a challenge. This involves curriculum reform in universities, scaling up vocational training for AI technicians and data analysts, and promoting widespread digital literacy for the broader workforce. The 0.91 correlation highlights that readiness depends on having people who can build and use AI effectively across all sectors. Labor policies also need to adapt to support workers whose jobs might be transformed by AI. Innovation Ecosystem – Deepening and Broadening: While India has innovation hubs and a booming startup scene, translating research into widespread commercial application and fostering deep-tech AI innovation requires further strengthening. Boosting R&D investment (both public and private), extreme simplifying processes for startups, and enhancing collaboration between academia and industry are vital. The 0.88 correlation suggests that a more deeply integrated and innovative economy is essential for AI leadership. Targeted Investment over Relying on Growth: India’s economy is growing, but the analysis cautions against becoming too comfortable, noting a -0.19 correlation with GDP growth. We see examples reinforcing this globally; for instance, a nation like Armenia might experience significant economic expansion yet exhibit AI preparedness levels comparable to India’s with 0.49, demonstrating that growth alone doesn’t guarantee advanced readiness. Conversely, it’s also observed that some nations with more moderate or even slower economic growth can achieve remarkably high AIPI rankings. This underlines that strategic focus often matters more than sheer growth velocity. Therefore, the resources generated by India’s growth must be strategically channeled into the foundational pillars such as enhancing infrastructure quality, building robust regulatory capacity, implementing nationwide skilling programs (although not enough), and boosting R&D. Relying on

72nd & Struggling: What’s Holding India Back in Global AI Race? Read More »

From Propulsion to Precision: How Aerospace Led Me to the Power of Engineering Management

Leave a Comment / Blog /

Engineering and management don’t compete — they complete each other. One builds the technology, the other makes sure it flies. From Propulsion to Precision: How Aerospace Led Me to the Power of Engineering Management May 6, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale Since childhood, I’ve looked at the night sky not just with curiosity, but with yearning. The stars weren’t distant lights; they were destinations. I grew up captivated by the cosmic beauty of the universe, inspired deeply by Kalpana Chawla and her legacy. Her journey from Karnal to space gave shape to a dream I held close to my heart: to become an astronaut and travel to the Moon, Mars, or even asteroid belts, anywhere that lay beyond Earth’s atmosphere. That dream became my compass, guiding my academic choices and ultimately landing me in Italy to study aerospace engineering. It felt like a natural progression, chasing the stars through propulsion equations and orbital mechanics. I immersed myself in the complex science of flight beyond Earth, driven by the belief that I was preparing myself, bit by bit, for space. Among all the subjects, propulsion systems fascinated me the most. To me, they were more than just machines, they were time-savers, and in many ways, the vessels of possibility. After all, time is perhaps the most precious currency we have, and propulsion is what lets us trade that time for distance. The other area that gripped me was mission planning. The amount of coordination, precision, and strategy it takes to execute a space mission is enormous. I loved how every minute detail mattered. Every plan had a purpose, and every contingency had a backup plan. There was so much to learn, and even more to explore. But while studying and engaging with professionals during my first master’s degree, I began to see the aerospace sector through a different lens. It wasn’t just rockets and research, it was deeply intertwined with national interests, politics, and fragmented competition. I started noticing how progress in the field often hinged less on pure technical innovation and more on strategic alignment, governance, and managerial efficiency. Even the most groundbreaking propulsion systems or mission designs wouldn’t take off without solid strategic execution behind them. That realization was a turning point. What began as curiosity slowly became conviction. I wanted to understand the broader machinery behind complex engineering sectors like aerospace. How do industries function? How are technologies commercialized? How are decisions made, and risks managed at scale? I wasn’t stepping away from aerospace, I was expanding my lens. I began to see engineering management not as a departure from my path, but as an essential extension of it. So I chose to pursue a second master’s in engineering management. It was a deliberate, strategic decision, one rooted in my desire to become someone who not only understands how spacecraft fly but also how organizations, policies, resources, and people work behind the scenes to make that flight happen. Now, I see myself equipped with both technical fluency and management insight. I’m not just chasing stars anymore; I’m learning how to build the systems that make those journeys possible. Through this transition, I’ve come to appreciate that technical brilliance alone doesn’t solve the world’s biggest problems. It’s the combination of technical depth, strategic foresight, and thoughtful execution that creates real impact. I don’t know if this is technically correct, but it feels true to me: strong management creates the space for technical innovation to grow — efficiently, purposefully, and sustainably. These experiences have shaped me, challenged me, and given me clarity. They reflect not just a shift in academic focus, but a deeper evolution in how I see the world and my role in it. I’m still that girl who dreamed of going to the Moon — but now, I’m also thinking about the systems, structures, and strategies that can take not just me, but entire industries, closer to the stars.

From Propulsion to Precision: How Aerospace Led Me to the Power of Engineering Management Read More »

Beyond GDP: Identifying the True Drivers of National AI Preparedness

Leave a Comment / Technology & Sustainability /

A booming economy doesn’t make a nation AI-ready — digital backbone, ethical foresight, and human skills do. Beyond GDP: Identifying the True Drivers of National AI Preparedness May 5, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale Data Source: Kaggle Tools Used: Python, Power BI Power BI Dashboard: View my end-to-end analytical process: The global landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) preparedness reveals deep disparities among nations, shaped more by digital infrastructure, governance, and human capital than by economic growth alone. Understanding the key drivers behind AI readiness is crucial for narrowing this gap and ensuring inclusive technological progress. This study explores the relationship between the AI Preparedness Index (AIPI) and various enablers, including digital ecosystems, regulation and ethics, human capital development, innovation, and economic integration. Through comprehensive correlation analysis, it highlights how countries that balance technological advancement with strong governance, education, and innovation ecosystems are significantly better positioned to harness the benefits of AI. Countries show wide disparities in AI preparedness, driven more by factors like digital infrastructure, regulation, and human capital than by economic growth alone. Understanding which capabilities most strongly influence AI readiness is essential for bridging this global gap. APIP vs Digital Infrastructure The analysis reveals critical insights into the relationship between a country’s digital infrastructure and its AI Preparedness Index (APIP). A very strong positive correlation of 0.96 between Digital Infrastructure and the AI Preparedness Index clearly indicates that countries with better-developed digital infrastructure are significantly more prepared to adopt and integrate artificial intelligence into their economies, societies, and governance systems. This finding highlights that a robust foundation of technological systems — including internet connectivity, server capacity, and general digital accessibility — is almost indispensable for enhancing a nation’s AI readiness. However, when looking deeper into specific components of digital infrastructure, the strength of correlation varies. The correlation between APIP and the percentage of individuals using the internet stands at 0.75, which, although strong, is notably lower than the direct relationship with the overall AI Preparedness Index. This suggests that while widespread internet usage is important, it alone does not fully capture the technological maturity needed for AI adoption. In other words, simply having more internet users does not guarantee a country’s AI preparedness unless it is accompanied by broader digital advancements. Further, the relationship between APIP and the number of Secure Internet Servers per million people shows an even weaker correlation of 0.46. This relatively moderate link indicates that while cybersecurity and server protection are crucial elements of a country’s digital environment, their direct impact on broad AI readiness might not be as immediate or dominant compared to other digital factors. It suggests that countries could still achieve strong overall AI preparedness even if their secure server density is not exceptionally high, provided that other digital infrastructure aspects are strong. Overall, the analysis points to a clear conclusion, general digital infrastructure quality beyond just individual internet access or server security is a critical pillar for AI readiness. Building a broad and advanced technological environment contributes far more significantly to a country’s ability to successfully adopt AI than focusing narrowly on individual metrics. AIPI vs Regulation and Ethics The analysis highlights another critical dimension of AI readiness: the role of regulatory frameworks and ethical considerations. A very strong positive correlation of 0.94 between Regulation and Ethics and the AI Preparedness Index (AIPI) clearly establishes that countries with well-developed, responsible regulatory environments are significantly better positioned to adopt and integrate artificial intelligence technologies. This correlation is the second strongest observed after the relationship between Digital Infrastructure and AI Preparedness, underscoring that regulation is almost as foundational to AI readiness as technological capability. The strength of this association suggests that merely having technological tools is not sufficient for advancing AI integration; a well-defined system of ethical guidelines, privacy protections, and governance structures is equally crucial. In the absence of proper regulation, even countries with strong digital infrastructure could struggle to integrate AI responsibly, risking issues such as data misuse, algorithmic bias, and public distrust. Therefore, countries that have invested effort into crafting comprehensive AI policies and ethical frameworks are naturally more prepared to leverage AI for societal and economic benefit. This strong correlation also signals that global competitiveness in AI is not determined solely by technical advancement, but by a balanced approach where technology and governance advance hand-in-hand. Nations that have recognized and implemented such balanced strategies are clearly leading in AI preparedness, as evidenced by their high AIPI scores in relation to strong regulatory and ethical standards. AIPI vs Human Capital and Labor Market Policies The analysis further deepens the understanding of critical enablers behind a country’s AI preparedness. A very strong positive correlation of 0.91 between Human Capital and Labor Market Policies and the AI Preparedness Index (AIPI) confirms that a nation’s ability to nurture, educate, and skill its workforce plays a pivotal role in its readiness for AI adoption. This correlation is the third highest observed after Digital Infrastructure and Regulation and Ethics, emphasizing that technological advancement and regulatory strength must be matched with human capabilities to fully realize the potential of AI. The strong relationship suggests that countries that prioritize education systems, continuous learning, AI-specific training, and adaptive labor market policies are substantially better prepared to integrate AI technologies effectively. The AI revolution not only demands technical talent such as engineers and data scientists but also a broader workforce that can interact with AI-driven systems across sectors. As such, investment in human capital ensures that societies are not just passive recipients of AI technologies but active participants in shaping and managing AI-enabled economies. Moreover, the significant correlation also points to the critical importance of labor policies that support workforce transition during technological change. Policies that encourage reskilling, upskilling, and mobility across industries enable a smoother adaptation to the demands of an AI-driven future. Without a strong focus on human capital, even technologically advanced countries could face bottlenecks in AI deployment, highlighting why this pillar is so closely linked to overall AI preparedness. AIPI vs Innovation and Economic

Beyond GDP: Identifying the True Drivers of National AI Preparedness Read More »

Inside My Data Lab: A Structured Path from Data into Decisions

Leave a Comment / Blog /

The structured approach is great, but real-world data projects often require flexibility — rigid pipelines can sometimes limit unexpected insights.  Inside My Data Lab: A Structured Path from Data into Decisions May 4, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale In the age of data-driven decision-making, mastering the data analysis process is more than a technical skill, it’s a strategic capability. As someone transitioning from engineering to data analytics, my projects are designed not just to visualize numbers, but to extract insights, diagnose problems, and propose solutions in ways that simulate real business scenarios. Each of my portfolio projects follows a carefully structured, methodical process that ensures clarity, integrity, and insightfulness in analysis. In this blog, I’ll walk you through my end-to-end data analysis pipeline, highlighting the key steps, techniques, and mindset I bring to each stage. 1. Problem Definition & Hypothesis Framing The first step isn’t code, it’s context. Before touching the data, I begin by understanding the domain and asking: What is this dataset about? What business or technical problems could this data help solve? What questions are meaningful and actionable? This results in clearly defined project objectives and working hypotheses. For example, in my electric vehicle (EV) adoption project, I wanted to examine: What factors drive EV sales in different regions? Are discounts or fast-charging capabilities more influential? How do customer segments impact revenue? By formulating a problem statement and a few targeted hypotheses, I ensure my analysis is purpose-driven, not exploratory chaos. 2. Data Acquisition & Cleaning (ETL) Once objectives are clear, I begin the ETL process — Extract, Transform, Load. Extract: I work with publicly available datasets (e.g., from Kaggle or Google Dataset Search), ensuring data licensing and usage are compliant. Transform (Cleaning): This is one of the most time-consuming phases. I use pandas in Python to: Handle missing values (drop, impute, or flag based on context) Standardize formats (date, currency, units), if necessary. Convert data types for efficiency Remove duplicates and irrelevant fields Normalize or encode categorical variables if necessary I ensure data integrity and consistency at this stage, so the analysis downstream remains robust. 3. Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) EDA is where I explore patterns, spot anomalies, and start seeing stories. I use Python libraries like: pandas for aggregation and slicing matplotlib and seaborn for quick visualizations (histograms, boxplots, scatterplots) plotly for interactive plots Key tasks here include: Univariate analysis: understanding individual variable distributions Bivariate/multivariate analysis: exploring correlations and interactions Outlier detection (if any): using IQR techniques Feature importance: identifying key drivers for outcomes like sales or mission success rates 4. Insight Extraction & Pattern Recognition After EDA, I extract meaningful insights by combining: Statistical techniques (correlation coefficients, regressions) Domain logic (what makes sense given the industry context?) Comparative benchmarking (e.g., how India compares to other nations in AI readiness) 5. Recommendation Framing & Business Implication Mapping A good data analyst goes beyond “what happened” to “so what?” For each insight, I aim to propose realistic recommendations. I ask: What should a company or policymaker do with this information? Are there operational or strategic changes this analysis suggests? For example, in the AI Preparedness Index project, I used correlation analysis to recommend that India focus on regulation clarity and infrastructure quality rather than GDP growth alone. 6. Visualization & Communication All insights must be communicated clearly and persuasively. I build: Dashboards in Power BI for interactive exploration Graphs in Plotly or Seaborn embedded in my articles Narrative storytelling in my blog format with a structured flow: Problem Analysis Insight Recommendation (Optional) Potential impact Here, I focus on design clarity, visual hierarchy, and minimalism. Every chart should serve a purpose. 7. Reflection & Continuous Improvement After each project, I reflect on: What new techniques did I learn? Where did I face challenges (e.g., poor data quality, model interpretability)? How could the project be improved or scaled? Data analysis is more than a linear pipeline, it’s a loop of inquiry, exploration, insight, and communication. My approach combines rigorous methodology with strategic storytelling, driven by a desire to make data truly useful. Whether analyzing space missions or EV markets, I believe the core value lies not in the complexity of code, but in the clarity of thought, relevance of insight, and quality of decision support it enables.

Inside My Data Lab: A Structured Path from Data into Decisions Read More »

The Story Behind “Excellence | By Sagarika Chikhale”

Leave a Comment / Blog /

Personal branding isn’t about self-promotion — it’s about making a promise. And sometimes, a powerful idea says more than a familiar name ever could. The Story Behind “Excellence | By Sagarika Chikhale” May 4, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale When I was building my portfolio, I was deeply intentional about every part of it, not just the projects, but the way the entire platform would represent who I am and what I believe in. One question kept coming up from people around me: “Why did you name your portfolio Excellence, when most people just use their name?” That question always made me smile, not because it caught me off guard, but because I wanted it to make people curious. The truth is, the name of my portfolio wasn’t just a title. It was a decision rooted in something personal, something powerful. For me, Excellence | By Sagarika Chikhale isn’t a label, it’s a promise. A small but meaningful part of how I view my journey, my values, and the work I want to do in this world. Why Not Just Use My Name? Yes, it’s common to name a portfolio after yourself. It’s simple, professional, and clear. But for me, that didn’t feel complete. I didn’t just want people to see ‘my name’. I wanted them to feel something when they read the title. I wanted my portfolio to speak before even opening a single project. And what better word to do that than “Excellence”, a value that guides how I work, learn, grow, and live? In a world where names might be forgotten, a message can stay. And I wanted mine to be about a standard I hold close to my heart. What “Excellence” Means to Me To me, excellence is not about perfection. It’s not about having all the answers or never making mistakes. Excellence is about showing up with purpose. It’s about giving your full effort, not just when it’s easy, but especially when it’s hard. It’s about going the extra mile, staying curious, questioning what can be improved, and never losing sight of the details that matter. It’s about doing things not just to complete them, but to be proud of how they were done. That’s the energy I bring into every portfolio project. Whether I’m working with data, designing visuals, or drawing insights, I keep asking myself: • “Is this thoughtful?” • “Is this meaningful?” • “Is this aligned with the kind of work I want to be known for?” Excellence, for me, is quiet discipline. It’s about staying consistent even when no one is watching. A Personal Branding Choice — But So Much More Yes, this name is a part of my personal branding strategy. In today’s professional world, branding isn’t reserved for companies anymore. Individuals are brands too. And branding isn’t just about logos or colors, it’s about the feeling you leave people with. The message that becomes associated with your name. By choosing “Excellence | By Sagarika Chikhale”, I’m creating a space where visitors, collaborators, and future employers instantly know what I stand for. And more than anything, I want them to know this: Every project here is crafted with care, thought, and commitment — not just to complete a task, but to pursue growth and contribute meaningfully. Excellence Is a Journey I am still learning. I am still exploring. I am still growing. But this name reminds me, every day, of the kind of energy I want to carry forward. It reminds me that excellence isn’t something you arrive at, it’s something you choose, again and again, in how you show up, what you create, and how you treat others. And that’s a journey I’m proud to be on.

The Story Behind “Excellence | By Sagarika Chikhale” Read More »

25 Years of Space Exploration: Key Learnings & Future Paths

Leave a Comment / Aerospace /

In space exploration, collaboration isn’t always a strength — without strategic alignment, it’s just expensive diplomacy. 25 Years of Space Exploration: Key Learnings & Future Paths May 3, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale Data Source: Kaggle Tools Used: Python, Power BI Power BI Dashboard: View my end-to-end analytical process: This project explores global space exploration missions from 2000 to 2025 using a dataset of 3,000 entries covering countries, mission types, budgets, technologies, success rates, and more. The goal is to identify trends, problems, and opportunities in international collaboration, technology use, budgeting, and environmental sustainability. The analysis focuses on four major challenges: ineffective collaboration strategies, budget mismatches, technology choices affecting environmental outcomes, and under-optimized satellite strategies. Through graphs, data comparisons, and success rate evaluations, the project uncovers key insights—such as the importance of strategic partnerships, the limited impact of high budgets alone, and the growing role of sustainable technologies. Based on these findings, five practical recommendations are proposed to help space agencies improve mission planning, funding decisions, and long-term performance. These recommendations are designed to guide data-driven, collaborative, and environmentally responsible space programs that align with future global priorities and deliver high value to all stakeholders involved in space exploration. Not all collaborations lead to high success rates, what makes them effective? The analysis of collaboration efficiency in space missions is essential to understanding what drives successful international partnerships. While collaborations generally enhance mission success, the data reveals that only strategic, well-aligned partnerships consistently achieve high outcomes. This insight is vital for space agencies aiming to optimize cooperation strategies. It emphasizes that collaboration alone is not enough—compatibility in technology, political alignment, and shared objectives play a critical role. Recognizing these factors can help stakeholders design more effective partnerships, reduce mission risks, and enhance returns on joint investments. This analysis informs future collaboration models that are both efficient and outcome focused. Variation in Collaboration Engagement Across Countries Countries like Germany, USA, and Russia have a higher number of missions involving international collaborations. In contrast, countries such as France, China, and India have been less active as collaborators, despite their high individual mission counts. This discrepancy raises questions about the strategic, financial, or geopolitical reasons influencing a nation’s decision to engage or abstain from collaboration in space missions. Bilateral Partnerships are More Common, but Not Always More Effective According to the collaboration count distribution, missions involving one collaborating country (bilateral agreements) are the most frequent. Countries may prefer bilateral partnerships for simplicity and to increase strategic alignment. However, the success rate distribution for missions with 90%+ success rates reveals that collaborations involving more than one country (especially 2 or 3) often lead to higher mission performance. This suggests that shared expertise, resources, and risk in multilateral missions can contribute positively to mission outcomes, provided the collaboration is strategically aligned. Collaboration Frequency Does Not Guarantee High Success Insights from the frequency and success of country-pair collaborations show that frequent collaboration does not always equate to high performance. For example, although Russia–UAE and India–Israel were among the most frequent collaborators, their missions had lower instances of 90%+ success rates compared to less frequent but more effective partnerships like Israel–UK. This suggests that the effectiveness of collaboration depends more on strategic compatibility than frequency. However, it also important to note that success rate of space missions depends not only on country’s strategic partnership but also on budget, technology, human resources, external environment of rockets or satellites. Top 10 Collaboration Group Count Success Rate of Top 10 Collaboration Group Count Least 10 Collaboration Group Count Success Rate of Least 10 Collaboration Group Count Least Frequent Collaborations Show Limited Success Further, some combinations, such as China, France, Germany, and Russia, appeared only once in collaborative missions during the dataset range, with moderate success (~82%). While not conclusive due to limited data points, it emphasizes that infrequent or ad hoc collaborations may face challenges related to alignment, communication, or operational execution—potentially affecting mission outcomes. Are countries overspending or underspending on certain technologies or satellite types? The analysis and insights are crucial for guiding smarter financial decisions in space exploration. They highlight that success is not solely a function of how much is spent, but how effectively resources are allocated. By uncovering inconsistencies between budget levels and mission outcomes, the analysis encourages a shift from cost-heavy approaches to performance-driven investments. This is particularly valuable for agencies operating under financial constraints or seeking to optimize returns. The findings support the development of funding strategies that prioritize high-performing technologies and collaborations, ultimately leading to more efficient use of public and private space exploration budgets. High Budgets Do Not Guarantee High Success Rates From the analysis of top mission budgets by technology, it is observed that missions using similar high budgets (~49.9 billion dollars) do not necessarily achieve uniform success. For instance, technologies like reusable rockets and nuclear propulsion are associated with 90%+ success rates, while solar propulsion and traditional rockets, despite being funded at comparable levels, achieved significantly lower success rates (50% and 55% respectively). This indicates that funding alone does not drive outcomes—the effectiveness of technology itself plays a critical role. Low-Budget Missions Can Deliver High Performance The analysis of the lowest mission budgets by technology reveals that reusable rocket technology achieved a 94% success rate at a budget of just 0.67 billion dollars, whereas traditional rockets, with a similar low budget (0.62 billion dollars), had a success rate of only 53%. This again confirms that certain technologies are inherently more reliable and efficient, delivering better results even with minimal financial investment. Bottom Mission Budgets for Each Technology Used Bottom Mission Budgets for Each Technology Used Strategic Collaborations Amplify Budget Efficiency Insights from demonstrate that the success of a mission is also influenced by the strategic choice of collaborators, not just the budget or technology. For example, India’s collaborations with UAE, USA, Japan, and Isreal resulted in higher success rates, even across varying budget levels. In contrast, Japan’s collaborations with Germany and China yielded only 50% success, and its broader collaboration

25 Years of Space Exploration: Key Learnings & Future Paths Read More »

How I Found Clarity Through Data

Leave a Comment / Blog /

Becoming a better thinker matters more than becoming a better coder. In the long run, it’s not the tool you master, but the questions you dare to ask that shape your impact. How I Found Clarity Through Data May 2, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale After completing my master’s in engineering management from Aston University in the UK, following earlier degrees in aerospace (Italy) and instrumentation engineering (India), I found myself wondering: What now? I had touched different fields, studied across countries, and explored technical depth. But deep down, I still felt the need to sharpen something more foundational: my decision-making. That’s when I turned to data. At first, it wasn’t about becoming a “data analyst” or chasing job titles. What drew me in was something personal. I’ve always loved asking “why” — why something happens, why patterns exist, why one solution works better than another. Data seemed to hold those answers, hidden in plain sight. I realized that learning to interpret data wasn’t just a skill, it was a mindset. And that mindset could help me make better choices, not just in work, but in life. What stood out to me early on was how different real data analysis felt compared to what I saw in job descriptions. Most roles focused heavily on tools such as Python, dashboards, coding. But once I got hands-on, I realized that the true essence of data analysis is asking the right questions. Understanding the story behind the numbers. Being able to say, “Here’s what this means, and here’s why it matters.” I began to treat each project like a journey. I’d start by understanding the dataset, what each column represented, how different parts might relate. I’d clean and explore it, but most importantly, I would pause often and ask why. Why is this trend showing up? Why is that number different? Each “why” revealed a new problem to solve or a new insight to consider. From there, I started thinking of solutions, what could be done, and how my findings might impact on a business, a team, or a bigger system. I also realized something else: domain knowledge matters. A lot. When you understand an industry like aerospace, for instance, you can spot insights that someone with just technical skills might miss. I believe that data analysis shouldn’t be separated from context. Tools are powerful, yes. But it’s the understanding that gives them meaning. Along the way, I kept learning. I started writing down my problem statements and “why” in a notebook for every project, it helped me stay focused. I also learned the value of collaboration. Working alone meant I had to wear many hats, like analyst, problem-solver, and decision-maker, which was enriching but also time-consuming. Thus, this made me appreciate how much faster and richer the process becomes when a team is involved. Different minds see different angles, and in data, those angles can mean everything. “Every revisit to a dataset reveals new angles, new stories.” One of the biggest realizations I had is that data analysis isn’t just for analysts. Anyone who makes decisions based on information is doing some form of data analysis, whether you’re a junior engineer or a CEO. The tools we use such as Python, Power BI, SQL are just the tools. They help us move forward, but only if we already know where we’re going. And yes — AI played a big part in my learning. Tools like ChatGPT helped me with writing codes. It wasn’t about shortcuts. It was about learning smarter, not harder. And I think we should normalize that AI isn’t replacing us; it’s supporting us. Creating this portfolio has been more than a technical exercise. It’s been a personal reflection, a way to bring together my curiosity, my values, and my desire to create impact through informed thinking. I didn’t do this just to showcase projects. I did this to learn how to think better, ask sharper questions, and contribute meaningfully. And I hope that it comes through every page you see here.

How I Found Clarity Through Data Read More »

Unpacking 2023 EV Market Performance: Insights on Brands, Buyers, and Regional Dynamics

Leave a Comment / Technology & Sustainability /

EV success isn’t about who’s most innovative — it’s about who understands local wallets, habits, and biases better. Unpacking 2023 EV Market Performance: Insights on Brands, Buyers, and Regional Dynamics May 1, 2025 By Sagarika Chikhale Data Source: Kaggle Tools Used: Python, Power BI Power BI Dashboard: View my end-to-end analytical process: The global electric vehicle (EV) market in 2023 reflected a dynamic and fragmented landscape shaped by regional preferences, brand positioning, and shifting consumer priorities. This analysis explores key trends in EV sales performance across different brands, customer segments, and continents, uncovering patterns in revenue generation, fast-charging adoption, vehicle type preferences, and demographic behaviors. From Kia’s global dominance to Tesla’s premium pricing paradox, and from BMW’s appeal to tech-savvy buyers to regional discrepancies like Europe’s low adoption, the findings highlight the complexity of market drivers. These insights provide a foundation for strategic recommendations to align products, pricing, and policy with evolving global demand. The analysis of brand-wise EV sales in 2023 shows that Kia emerged as the most sold brand globally, followed by BMW, indicating their strong market presence and appeal to a wide range of consumers. Conversely, Tesla recorded the lowest number of units sold among all brands analyzed, which may suggest a shift in consumer preferences or heightened competition in premium EV segments. While unit sales offer one perspective, a deeper look into average revenue per brand presents a different picture. Tesla, despite its lower sales volume, generated the highest average revenue per vehicle sold in 2023, followed by Toyota. This indicates that Tesla’s pricing strategy or product positioning continues to command a premium. In contrast, Volkswagen had the lowest average revenue, pointing either to aggressive pricing strategies or a focus on budget-conscious segments. When examining the impact of fast-charging capabilities across brands, the data suggests a strong global preference for EVs equipped with fast-charging technology. Brands that offered fast-charging options saw higher adoption. BMW led in fast-charging EV sales, reflecting its alignment with consumer demand for faster charging times and convenience. Interestingly, Tesla, a brand historically associated with advanced technology, recorded the lowest sales in the fast-charging EV category, which could point toward may be a model-specific gap in offerings. The regional analysis of EV adoption across six continents North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania shows notable variation. North America led the world in EV sales during 2023, likely driven by favorable policy environments, higher disposable incomes, and better infrastructure. Oceania followed closely behind, reflecting the region’s rising interest in sustainable transport. Surprisingly, Europe recorded the lowest sales in this dataset, which is atypical of global EV trends. This result may be influenced by regional market saturation, economic challenges, or simply a reflection of the sample dataset. A cross-analysis of customer segments and brand preference highlights how different demographic or psychographic groups interact with specific EV brands. High Income and Middle Income customers both showed a preference for BMW, suggesting that the brand resonates across a range of financially capable buyers due to its balance of luxury and performance. The Budget-Conscious segment leaned toward Kia, reinforcing the brand’s image as a reliable and affordable option. Among the Tech Enthusiasts, BMW again stood out, possibly due to its adoption of innovative features and strong brand perception in technological advancement. Meanwhile, Eco-Conscious consumers preferred Kia, indicating the brand’s alignment with environmentally focused values and cost-effective sustainability. The regional breakdown of EV brand popularity in 2023 reveals intriguing variations in consumer preferences across global markets. Toyota emerged as the most popular EV manufacturer in Africa, indicating a strong foothold in developing regions where brand trust and perceived reliability may significantly influence purchase decisions. In contrast, Kia dominated the Asian and South American markets, likely due to its balance of affordability, modern features, and accessibility. Meanwhile, Ford was the leading brand in Europe, a somewhat unexpected outcome given the dominance of local European manufacturers in real-world trends. In North America and Oceania, BMW held the top position, reflecting its strong appeal in high-income regions with mature automotive markets. When analyzed by vehicle type, Hatchbacks emerged as the most popular category across five of the six regions: North America, South America, Europe, Oceania, and Africa. This could suggest a general preference for compact, city-friendly, and affordable EVs in these regions. Asia was the only region where Trucks gained more traction, highlighting regional variations in lifestyle and infrastructure that influenced vehicle type preferences. To understand the factors influencing EV purchase decisions in more depth, we analyzed customer segments within two key regions, North America, which had the highest EV sales, and Europe, which recorded the lowest in 2023. In North America, High Income consumers most often chose BMW, with weak correlations between sales and both discounts (0.204) and price (-0.256), and almost none with battery capacity (0.016), indicating brand perception likely drove decisions. Middle Income buyers preferred BYD, showing greater sensitivity to discounts (0.266) but minimal influence from battery capacity. Budget Conscious consumers leaned toward Hyundai, yet discounts showed a negative correlation with sales (-0.239), suggesting perceived value outweighed price cuts; battery characteristics and price had only weak positive effects. Tech Enthusiasts also favored BMW, with a stronger emphasis on performance such as battery capacity (0.285) and price (0.49) correlated positively with sales, while discounts had a negative effect (-0.22), highlighting a preference for premium features. Meanwhile, Eco-Conscious consumers opted for Kia, where battery capacity positively influenced purchases (0.246), and both price and discount had minimal impact, underscoring sustainability as a key motivator. In contrast, Europe, despite being a mature market for EVs—recorded the lowest sales in the dataset. Among High Income buyers, Volkswagen was most popular, though battery capacity and price (-0.411) negatively affected sales, while discounts (0.288) had a moderately positive impact, showing greater sensitivity to promotions. Middle Income consumers preferred Ford, but extreme correlation values (-1.0 and 0.999) across all factors suggest possible data quality issues. Budget Conscious buyers also favored Ford, with strong negative correlations for battery capacity and price (-0.472), and a moderate

Unpacking 2023 EV Market Performance: Insights on Brands, Buyers, and Regional Dynamics Read More »

Thank you for visiting 😄
I appreciate your time and interest. Feel free to reach out I am always open to new ideas, collaborations, and opportunities to grow.

©2025. Sagarika Chikhale. All Rights Reserved.