The Problem
Design, engineering, manufacturing, and delivery often work with different representations of the same project. The resulting handovers create duplicated information, late feedback, and dependence on specialists to keep the pieces aligned.
My Role
My work on Fabrify combined product strategy, system architecture, and hands-on development. It grew from earlier design-for-manufacture research and an AEC Hackathon concept into a broader platform direction for advanced manufacturing.
The Approach
The platform strategy treated design intent, fabrication planning, simulation, manufacturing, logistics, and assembly as a connected lifecycle. Timber building elements provided an initial domain for making that strategy concrete.
The architecture made dependencies, approvals, machine capabilities, and delivery states explicit. It accounted for incomplete information, changing priorities, unavailable machines, human intervention, and recoverable failure.
Product and Architecture Work
I defined workflows for designers, planners, operators, project managers, and clients, along with an event-driven cloud architecture. The planned pipeline connected design ingestion and manufacturability checks with simulation, planner approval, scheduling, execution, and reporting.
These describe the product and architecture work. They are not a claim that every proposed service, integration, or manufacturing workflow reached production.
What It Shows
Product strategy benefits from technical depth. A useful operating model has to explain how information, decisions, and responsibility move through the real process, as well as what appears on the screen.