Maintain functional autonomy
Let engineering, operations, and vendors manage independent plans and resolve conflicts as they surfaced. Preserves autonomy, sustains late discovery of cross-stream conflicts.
~$125Mcapital context
~100MWacross three utility-scale sites
1,000–1,300tasks per deployment stream
3+parallel workstreams on shared capacity
The operating problem
What leadership was facing.
Doosan GridTech was deploying its grid-control platform across three utility-scale battery storage sites while developing the next platform generation and standing up a cybersecurity program — all drawing on the same constrained engineering capacity. Construction windows were fixed, battery shipments were sequenced, and milestone dates carried contractual exposure. Each deployment stream held 1,000–1,300 tasks spanning configuration, integration, vendor coordination, and commissioning readiness. The work needed one planning view so leaders could see capacity, milestone exposure, and tradeoffs before delivery pressure surfaced.
Options on the table
The decision, framed honestly.
Introduce formal PMO controls
Add structured reporting layers and stage gates. Visible control, but risks slowing iteration and creating resistance without improving sequencing quality.
Lightweight integrated sequencing
A unified master plan under CTO sponsorship: consistent governance rhythms, shared constraints made explicit, schedule risk surfaced early — discipline through facilitation, not mandate.
What I put in place
The structure behind the outcome.
- Operated as the dotted-line planning-and-delivery leadership layer between 8 department heads (R&D, software, test, commissioning, and cybersecurity) and the CTO — setting planning cadence and driving cross-team accountability, escalation, and follow-through
- Consolidated current-platform deployments, next-generation development, and cybersecurity planning into a single integrated view
- Mapped software readiness milestones to construction and commissioning gates
- Made shared engineering constraints explicit so capacity contention was visible at portfolio level
- Ran predictable governance forums focused on changes, risks, and required follow-up, with sequencing rationale documented to reduce re-litigation
- Applied AI-assisted exception review to focus human attention on dependency gaps, capacity conflicts, and critical-path questions the task volume would otherwise hide
What changed
The operating difference.
Cross-stream conflicts surfaced earlier. Capacity contention across deployment, development, and security work became visible instead of implicit. Leaders could make tradeoff calls from one view — capacity fit, deferral, milestone risk, and launch readiness — instead of reconstructing status across separate plans.
Why it mattered
The executive read.
In infrastructure-scale delivery, software sequencing is operationally coupled to physical construction and vendor logistics. When product evolution, deployment commitments, and risk mitigation compete invisibly for shared capacity, schedule pressure accumulates quietly. Integrated sequencing under CTO sponsorship gave leadership clearer prioritization under constraint — structured decision support in a capital-coupled environment, not a reporting enhancement.
Related operating proof:
Tradeoffs to executive decision
Decision and sequencing modules
Supporting references
Colleagues described the same operating pattern.
Excerpts from LinkedIn recommendations tied to the Doosan GridTech planning and delivery governance work.
Doosan GridTech
An essential partner in managing multiple cross-functional complex projects concurrently … able to quickly help me morph complex plans into forms more easily digestible by executives and corporate audiences.
Marco’s measured approach contributed to much improved outcomes and provided certainty where there had previously been none. His strategic direction made us better.
A great combination of being easy to work with, precise in how he approaches timelines and deliverables, and communicates well with executive management both internally and at our customers.
I watched him walk into contentious meetings between engineering, field operations, and C-suite executives — and within two sessions, have everyone aligned on priorities and next steps.
His diplomatic and often democratic approach brought right-sized levels of structure to our processes exactly when they were needed, enabling short, medium, and long-term successes.