Results
Condensed case studies showing operational stabilization produced by operational design intervention
Early-Stage / Series A
Groundwater remediation startup
Context
This was an early-stage environmental technology company developing modular groundwater remediation systems using carbon-nanotube filtration. The company was pre-scale, small team (<20), and transitioning from R&D into pilot commercialization. The moment mattered because investor interest and pilot partnerships depended on the company demonstrating repeatability, not just technical promise. Operational instability directly increased burn and delayed validation.
Operational state on entry
There was no operating model. R&D, production, vendor coordination, and commercialization efforts operated independently, with founders absorbing coordination overhead. Decisions were made reactively, and execution depended on individual heroics rather than structure. Time was consumed reconciling priorities, re-explaining work, and restarting efforts that stalled due to missing inputs. Incremental fixes failed because there was no shared system to anchor sequencing, ownership, or handoffs.
What I put in place
I designed the company’s first end-to-end operating architecture, spanning R&D workflow, prototype production, vendor collaboration, and early go-to-market execution. This required explicit authority to define roles, decision rights, and sequencing constraints so work could progress without constant founder intervention. The cost of architecture upfront was justified by the alternative: continued burn without learning velocity or credibility with partners.
Implementation was staged. Core workflows were stabilized first so engineering and production could operate predictably. Supply chain and manufacturing frameworks were defined next, focused on pilot-scale feasibility rather than premature optimization. Commercialization activities were deliberately constrained until upstream dependencies were reliable. Certain elements—vendor reliability and prototype validation—could not be rushed without invalidating results, and timelines were enforced accordingly.
What stabilized
After implementation, work progressed through defined paths rather than ad-hoc coordination. Founders no longer mediated daily execution. Pilot readiness, vendor engagement, and internal delivery cadence held after transition. The operating model remained intact when a permanent COO stepped in, providing continuity rather than reset.
Series B
Motorcycle safety & comms technology company
Context
This was a Series B hardware-plus-software company focused on motorcycle safety and rider communications. The company had grown rapidly and was facing scale pressure across product, engineering, and go-to-market. The inflection point mattered because missed launches and coordination failures directly affected revenue and partner confidence. Instability was expensive due to hardware lead times and customer trust dependencies.
Operational state on entry
The organization had talent but lacked an integrated operating system. Product, engineering, and commercial teams operated on different cadences with competing priorities. Executive time was consumed resolving conflicts, reprioritizing work mid-stream, and managing fallout from missed dependencies. Incremental process tweaks failed because the root issue was structural misalignment, not effort or intent.
What I put in place
I introduced a unified operating architecture that aligned planning, execution cadence, and decision rights across hardware, software, and commercial functions. This required centralizing prioritization authority and imposing sequencing discipline to prevent downstream rework. The engagement scope and authority were explicit: architecture first, execution second, handoff third.
Implementation unfolded in phases. First, I stabilized portfolio visibility so leadership could see tradeoffs clearly. Second, I imposed constraints on work intake to protect delivery commitments. Third, I established governance routines that forced decisions to happen once, in the right forum. Certain changes—cross-team trust and planning discipline—required repeated cycles and could not be compressed without breaking adoption.
What stabilized
Delivery became predictable. Executives stopped acting as traffic controllers. Product launches held to plan with fewer late-stage escalations. The operating cadence persisted after transition, allowing the permanent COO to inherit a functioning system rather than a rescue situation.
Late-stage scale-up / pre-enterprise
Desktop 3D printer company
Context
This was a late-stage scale-up approaching enterprise complexity in the consumer 3D printing space. The company had strong brand presence and expanding product lines but lacked enterprise-grade operating discipline. The timing mattered as the organization prepared for broader commercialization and valuation scrutiny. Instability showed up as missed coordination and internal drag rather than market failure.
Operational state on entry
Growth had outpaced structure. Teams delivered impressive work, but execution depended on informal networks and executive escalation. Digital initiatives, partnerships, and product efforts competed without a shared prioritization model. Incremental fixes failed because scale had crossed the threshold where informal coordination could function.
What I put in place
I designed and implemented a scalable operating framework that aligned digital innovation, commercialization, and cross-functional execution. This included defining governance boundaries, delivery standards, and cross-team interfaces so initiatives could move without constant senior involvement. Authority was required to rationalize initiatives and stop work that diluted focus.
Implementation emphasized durability over speed. Core decision forums were established first, followed by execution cadences and performance visibility. I resisted compressing adoption timelines where it would undermine trust or clarity. The goal was not short-term throughput, but sustained execution capacity.
What stabilized
Initiatives progressed within defined lanes. Leadership regained capacity to focus on strategy rather than mediation. The operating framework held after transition, supporting continued scale without reintroducing chaos.
