I find it difficult to describe my work with a single job title.
I have founded companies, built products, led teams, and worked as a consultant inside a global organization. Depending on the project, the most useful thing I can do might be shaping a product, working through an interface, discussing an engineering decision, or helping people agree on what to do next.
The connection between those things is where I keep finding work that interests me.
Different settings, a familiar responsibility
At Roundme, I was building a company around a product that made creating and sharing virtual tours easier. Raising $3 million and growing a team to 35 people meant that the work extended far beyond the interface. The product needed a business around it, and the team needed a direction they could build toward.
My consulting work with the World Bank Group put me in a different setting. The Interactive Media Team was using technology to communicate complex ideas. I helped teams introduce tools, improve processes, and create immersive experiences. Understanding how the work would fit into an organization mattered alongside what the technology could do.
With Konstantly, I am bringing product strategy, design, and engineering together around workplace learning. The question is how to give people a capable tool that still feels approachable when they are creating their first course.
These projects have different audiences and constraints. In each one, I need to understand enough of the whole situation to make useful decisions about the part in front of me.
A small product decision can cross the whole team
One example from Konstantly is the choice between a simple course sequence and a visual canvas with branching. On the surface, it looks like a question about which screen an author sees first.
It reaches much further. The product decision is what a new author should have to understand. The design question is how to introduce more flexibility when it becomes useful. The engineering question includes how to move between those views without losing the logic of a course.
Someone looking only at the first screen could miss that last problem. Someone looking only at the underlying structure could miss why the first screen feels difficult.
I like being close enough to the work to connect those questions. It helps me see where a seemingly small request needs a wider conversation, and where a complicated proposal can become simpler.
Being involved takes judgment too
There is a tension here. I enjoy building, and that can make it tempting to reach for the implementation myself. As a team grows, I have to be deliberate about where that instinct helps.
I want the people doing the work to have real ownership. That means a clear problem, room to make decisions, and access to the context behind the request. If every detail has to come back through me, I have made the team depend on my availability.
The kind of involvement I aim for is practical: understand the constraints, help resolve a tradeoff, review the experience together, and be willing to change the direction when the work reveals something we missed.
Sometimes I need to make the decision. Sometimes the useful contribution is a question. Sometimes I need to give someone space to solve it.
This is what I want my work to show
When I revisited this website, I thought about the different people who might read it. A founder might be looking for help getting a product off the ground. A potential employer might be looking for someone who can lead a team through a complicated next stage.
I want both to be able to see how I approach the work. Titles and dates provide context. The projects can show the decisions, the responsibilities, and how I connect an idea to something a team can deliver.
That is why staying close to the work still matters to me. I want enough understanding to make good commitments, recognize a difficult tradeoff, and help the people around me move forward.
The case studies show a few examples. My experience puts those chapters in order.