I’m most useful in the space between strategy, design and engineering

— particularly when something is complicated, changing or not quite defined yet.

I’ve spent my career moving between disciplines rather than specialising in one narrow part of the process. I understand design, I can build things, I’m comfortable talking about architecture and infrastructure, and I can translate all of that into decisions that make sense to people who don’t need to know the technical detail.

Technical leadership

I can lead developers without needing to stop being technical. I’m comfortable getting into a codebase, reviewing an approach, debugging a problem or building a prototype when that’s the quickest way to move something forward.

But technical leadership is also about creating the conditions for other people to do good work: setting direction, removing ambiguity, making sensible architectural decisions and knowing when to get out of the way.

Between design and engineering

A lot of expensive problems appear in the gap between what has been designed and what can sensibly be built. This is probably where my mixed background is most useful.

I can challenge a design because I understand the implementation, or challenge a technical constraint because I understand what the experience is trying to achieve. I’m interested in finding the best compromise rather than defending one discipline.

Digital strategy that can actually be delivered

Strategy is much more useful when somebody understands what it will take to implement it. I can help turn broad organisational ambitions into platforms, products, processes and a realistic sequence of work.

That often means working backwards from the outcome: understanding users and organisational needs, auditing what already exists, identifying constraints and then deciding what should be improved, replaced, connected or left alone.

When a project needs definition

I’m particularly comfortable joining work that doesn’t yet have a neat specification. There might be a business problem, an opportunity, an ageing platform or simply a feeling that something could work better.

I can help turn that ambiguity into something actionable: asking questions, bringing the right people together, testing assumptions and progressively reducing the number of unknowns until there’s a sensible direction.

Small teams with big problems

I work well in small multidisciplinary teams where people need to operate beyond rigid job descriptions. I don’t need every problem to be handed to the correct department before I can engage with it.

I’m happy switching altitude throughout a project — from discussing organisational priorities to working through an interface or investigating why something has broken in production.

Not another layer of management

I’m not interested in creating process for the sake of appearing organised. The role I naturally fall into is closer to connecting things: people, disciplines, technology and decisions.

Sometimes that means leading. Sometimes it means making something myself. Sometimes it means asking the awkward question that stops a team spending three months solving the wrong problem.

Where I fit best is wherever there’s a gap between knowing what an organisation wants to achieve and knowing how to make it happen.