I have 27 years building centralised planning and operational systems on legacy enterprise platforms. At Pacific Brands Workwear Group I built a centralised engine that harvested 6 disparate ERPs, auto-generated supplier orders, produced branded dashboards per division, and delivered S&OP decks to CEOs with mandatory sign-off governance — the structural pattern this role calls for, just on a different domain. At Australian Defence Apparel I worked directly in Dynamics AX on regulated defence procurement, where precision is not optional. At Saputo Dairy Australia I designed and built a 7-layer architecture solo on personal equipment: 10,000+ lines of VBA, 231 Power BI visuals, 155 DAX measures, full operational governance design. The DOT system was the most recent of these and was delivered with Anthropic's Claude as a genuine engineering partner from 2024: not Copilot, which is autocomplete, but a real build collaborator. The system was not adopted at Saputo; the AI-assisted personal-equipment build was the integrity issue I voluntarily disclosed to corporate security on exit. That methodology is what I'd bring forward. The difference is the difference between a slide deck and a working enterprise-scale architecture.
Your ad is explicit that traditional SDM experience alone isn't enough — that's exactly why I'm responding. The mandate is greenfield strategy, AI/automation roadmap, service redesign, and executive influence. Below is how I'd approach each pillar of the role, paired with the specific evidence from my track record. I built this entire site — this analysis, the industry context, the platform behind it — as a working demonstration of the methodology.
The ad is explicit: this is not a service desk management role. It's a transformation mandate — assess current maturity, define future-state capability, build the multi-year roadmap. The end client is a leading Australian financial services organisation investing heavily in technology uplift, operational maturity, and employee experience.
This is a strategy role with executive visibility, funded from above, with authority to redesign service models from first principles.
At Pacific Brands I was given the same brief: assess fragmented operations across 6 ERPs and divisions, define the future state, build the roadmap, then deliver. Group-level role, three management tiers above where I sit today. CEO sign-off governance. Branded dashboards per division. The structural template for what this mandate is asking for.
At Saputo I built it again on a different domain — a 7-layer DOT architecture replacing manual Excel-based planning across the Australian dairy operation. Week 1–4: Maturity assessment of current ITSM, automation, and service models. Month 2–3: Future-state architecture and multi-year roadmap with phased automation and AI introduction. Month 4+: Delivery teams aligned, governance locked, first AI-enabled service workflows in production.
The ad calls for transformation experience using AI, automation, or intelligent service models. Implementation of automation tools, AI platforms, chatbots, portals, and workflow orchestration. Predictive insights and data-led reporting embedded into operations.
The bar is real production AI — not vendor demo, not pilot purgatory.
At Saputo I designed and built the entire DOT architecture using Anthropic's Claude as a genuine engineering partner from 2024 — not autocomplete, not suggestion engine. Architectural reasoning, code review, design iteration. The result was a seven-layer enterprise-scale artefact (231 visuals, 155 DAX measures) built in months not years — not adopted at Saputo (the AI-assisted personal-equipment build was the integrity issue I voluntarily disclosed to corporate security on exit), but the architectural proof remains.
For this role: AI-enabled triage and routing. Predictive incident detection from telemetry patterns. Self-service portals that actually deflect tickets because the underlying knowledge is structured and queryable. Workflow orchestration that touches the work, not just the ticket. I bring the methodology and the proof — one builder + AI partner can deliver what whole transformation programmes have failed at.
The ad asks for redesign of incident, request, change, knowledge, and support models — the core ITSM disciplines — with a modern automation and AI-first mindset. ITIL knowledge expected, but with the explicit caveat that traditional ITIL alone won't deliver the future state.
This is service architecture, not service ops.
The DOT architecture at Saputo IS service architecture in another guise. Incident-equivalent: planning exceptions auto-routed by severity. Request-equivalent: master data changes governed through structured workflow. Change-equivalent: scenario modelling with audit trail. Knowledge-equivalent: unified semantic layer queryable in natural language. The discipline transfers because the discipline is the same: structured data + automated workflow + AI overlay + governance.
For this role: Map current incident/request/change/knowledge flows. Identify which 20% of touchpoints carry 80% of the operational drag. Redesign with automation built into the workflow, not bolted on top. AI as the deflection layer, not the support layer.
The role requires strong executive stakeholder engagement, securing buy-in for transformation programs, and partnering across technology, cyber, engineering, digital, and business functions. Governance, prioritisation, and execution at strategic level.
Transformation lives or dies on whether senior leaders sign the work in.
At Pacific Brands the centralised system fed S&OP decks to divisional CEOs with mandatory physical sign-off sheets. No dashboard, no meeting, no decision — the system held the floor. That was how a single builder produced binding governance across a fragmented group structure. The lesson: senior leaders engage when the work makes their job easier and makes their decisions clearer, not when they're asked to approve more process.
For this role: Build the executive narrative around what changes for them — faster signal, fewer surprises, demonstrable cost-out. Show the roadmap as a series of working artefacts, not Gantt charts. Make the AI tangible to the CIO and the CFO before asking them to fund the next phase.
The end client operates in a regulated financial services environment — APRA prudential standards, ASIC oversight, Privacy Act, AML/CTF, Consumer Data Right. Service transformation in this sector means change controls, audit trails, and demonstrable compliance baked into every automated workflow.
FS experience is highly regarded in the ad. I'm explicit that I'm coming to FS from adjacent regulated industries — and my track record shows I respect the constraint set.
At Australian Defence Apparel I worked Dynamics AX in defence procurement — military bills of material, defence-grade inventory, where every transaction carries audit weight. At Saputo the food-safety and traceability constraints in dairy are operationally similar to financial controls: structured data, time-stamped events, immutable audit chain, governed change.
For this role: Every automation gets its audit hook designed-in from day one. Change control isn't bolted on after the workflow ships — it IS the workflow. APRA CPS 230 operational risk, CPS 234 information security, BCBS 239 risk data — these are constraint sets I'd onboard quickly because I've worked their operational equivalents. The methodology of building for audit is what carries across.