Stabilizing & Modernizing a Mission-Critical Software Platform
How I took executive product ownership of a legacy MRV platform while reducing development costs, coordinating multiple offshore teams, preserving production continuity, and leading its replacement through product, data, security, UAT, and launch readiness.
At ESMC, EcoHarvest sat at the center of a complicated operating chain. The platform supported producer enrollment, implementation-partner workflows, internal project and data operations, downstream modeling, verification, and reporting. The organization needed to keep that legacy product functioning while simultaneously building the next version.
By the time I assumed executive product ownership, the challenge extended well beyond software development. Development costs and vendor capacity needed tighter management, legacy knowledge had to be preserved, and multiple external and offshore teams had to coordinate across time zones without disrupting production support or losing momentum on the new platform.
I approached EcoHarvest as a business system rather than a standalone technology project. Product decisions affected vendor spend, internal capacity, user workflows, data quality, security, downstream modeling, verification, reporting, and launch risk. I led the operating structure that connected those dependencies while stabilizing the legacy platform and moving the replacement toward launch.
The Operating Problem
EcoHarvest had to solve two problems at once: keep a mission-critical legacy platform working for current users while building its replacement. The legacy system supported producer enrollment, implementation partners, internal operations, reporting, downstream modeling, and verification, so instability in one part of the platform could affect work far beyond the software itself.
At the same time, development costs needed to come down, vendor capacity had to be managed more deliberately, institutional knowledge could not be lost, and multiple teams working across time zones needed clearer ownership, priorities, and handoffs. The replacement also had to be ready not just technically, but operationally across users, data, security, integrations, and downstream dependencies.
What Changed
The legacy platform gained a more disciplined operating structure around production continuity, support, vendor accountability, and decision-making while the replacement continued to move forward. Development spending became more controlled, responsibilities became clearer, and work across legacy support, transition, and new development became easier to coordinate.
The replacement also moved toward launch with stronger product ownership, UAT discipline, security readiness, data-quality attention, and visibility into downstream modeling and operational dependencies. The result was not simply a software rebuild. It was a more deliberate operating model for managing a critical product through transition.
01 - LEGACY PLATFORM STABILITY & CONTINUITY
Led the operating work needed to keep the existing EcoHarvest platform functioning for producers, implementation partners, internal teams, reporting, modeling, and verification while the replacement was being built.
What I Led
02 - DEVELOPMENT COST & VENDOR DISCIPLINE
Reduced development costs and strengthened vendor accountability by clarifying scope, priorities, ownership, delivery expectations, and the operating capacity required across external development resources.
03 - MULTI-TEAM & OFFSHORE COORDINATION
Coordinated legacy support, transition work, and new-platform development across multiple external and offshore teams, preserving knowledge and maintaining continuity across different time zones and workstreams.
04 - PRODUCT, UAT, SECURITY & LAUNCH READINESS
Led product decisions and launch-readiness work across requirements, UAT, security, user workflows, data quality, defect resolution, and operational handoffs so readiness was evaluated as more than a development-complete milestone.
05 - DATA, MODELING & OPERATING BRIDGE
Connected product decisions to implementation-partner workflows, internal data operations, downstream modeling, verification, reporting, vendor cost, and organizational capacity so technical choices could be evaluated in their full business context.
What This Demonstrates
This case demonstrates my ability to take executive ownership of a software product in a technically complex environment without losing sight of the business around it. I can connect product decisions, vendor economics, data quality, security, user workflows, implementation dependencies, downstream modeling, and operating capacity into one decision framework.
The work required more than managing a development roadmap. It meant keeping a legacy system viable while controlling cost, preserving institutional knowledge, coordinating multiple teams, improving accountability, and making sure the replacement was operationally ready for the people and processes that depended on it.
Capabilities: Executive product ownership · Product operations · Vendor management · Development cost discipline · Offshore team coordination · Legacy stabilization · UAT · Security readiness · Data quality · Launch readiness · Cross-functional product leadership · Finance & technology integration
OPERATING PRINCIPLE
Software is never just a software problem. A critical platform sits inside a web of users, data, vendors, costs, controls, dependencies, and business decisions. Good product leadership has to see the whole system.