Your posting describes a job I already do. At Dow Jones I own how work moves through a brand team: intake, briefing, capacity, prioritization, and delivery, across event properties, campaigns, and fixed go-live dates, in Asana, which I own. Before that I was a Director of Creative Operations who built the function from zero. And when the process needed a tool that did not exist, I built it with AI.
This page is orchestrated like the thing you sell: one journey, one recipient, every claim a message with a source.
Press ⌘K anywhere to jump. An ops page should have an ops shortcut.
The week, as notifications
6 workbooks in. 1 resourced plan out. 1 field missing, follow-up drafted.
Q3 plan pushed. 0 fields re-typed. 120+ requests scoped since June.
Week 41 is over capacity. A proposal is staged. Nothing moves until you approve.
Fixed-date go-live: hit. About 8 events and 5 launches in 5 months.
"...targets across all workstreams without burnout."
Representative notifications. Every number in them is real, from the résumé, and resolved in footnote 7.
Clients and properties include Google, android.com, Google Search Ads, GE Healthcare, Dow Jones, WSJ, Barron's, MarketWatch, Microsoft, SAP Ariba, Vodafone, Merck, NYU Langone, Petfinder and ConEdison.
Your posting asks for AI-assisted workflows where they meaningfully improve speed, quality, or visibility. The word doing the work in that sentence is meaningfully, and I have a tested opinion about where that line sits, because I have built on both sides of it.
The same hour goes wrong in every creative team I have worked in. Agencies, a startup, in-house teams. The resourcing meeting happens, real decisions get made out loud, and then somebody has to remember them and write them up afterwards. Usually late, usually thinner than what was said. The board drifts quietly out of date until the next meeting rediscovers it.
So I built a resourcing tool for my own team, to manage our capacity. The point of it is one sentence: the meeting should update the board, instead of somebody updating the board about the meeting. Building it forced four decisions I would not have thought about from the outside, and those decisions are the point of view I would bring to Braze.
The decision waits for a one-click confirmation, and until that click the board is exactly as it was. Not a setting, not a preference somebody can switch off in a hurry. The tool has no way to move your work on its own.
By the time somebody writes the decision up, the room has moved on and the wording has softened. What reaches the board is not quite what was agreed to. The only fix that holds is catching the decision while it is still being made.
PTO, standing meetings and partial weeks come off the top before anything is promised. A capacity number that quietly assumes everybody has a full clear week is a number that was never true, and the whole meeting is sitting on it.
Before the work is promised away, not once somebody is already standing in it. A plan that only tells you the truth in hindsight is a report. The point of the hour is to be able to act on it while the people who decide are still in the room.
None of the four is really a decision about AI. Each one is a decision about the meeting. Resourcing is the most politically loaded hour in a creative team's week: capacity, priority and whose work gets cut, decided out loud in front of the people it lands on. Automate a move out of that room and the person whose week just changed finds out afterwards. And the same judgment runs the other way: my rule for tooling is buy when a product does the real job, adapt when the gap is process rather than software, and build only when the near miss would force the team to reshape how it works. Most of the time, the answer is buy.2
Every quarter, six teams at Dow Jones send in their plans and requests. Subscription strategy, product design, product management, performance marketing, CRM, event marketing. Each sends its own spreadsheet, in its own shape, half of it written in a hurry.
Asking everyone for a single template has never worked anywhere I have tried it, so I built Relay to take the files exactly as they arrive. The teams never open it.2 Your posting calls this "intake through launch." Here is what my version of intake looks like when the front door has to read everything.
Click through the steps. The pipeline has six. This page shows the first and the last two, and keeps the middle three off the internet on purpose.12
Nobody is doing anything wrong. Six teams have six ways of describing work, because they do six different jobs. The fix is not a nicer form. It is a thing that reads all six, exactly as they arrive.
Six teams, thousands of cells, one plan out. The volume is why this is a system and not an afternoon.
Between collecting and ranking, Relay does the three hardest things it does: it reads intent out of hurried prose, settles six vocabularies into one, refuses to guess a field nobody filled in, and chases its own gaps until they close. That much I will say, because the résumé already does.
How it does those things reliably is the part I am not publishing. Not because it is magic, but because it took real design decisions to get right, and those decisions are worth more in a room than on a page. This is also your answer to a question the posting implies: yes, I know the difference between showing the work and giving it away.
Ask me about the missing three steps. It is my favorite part of the interview.
Every item comes out of the middle carrying a reason and a capacity cost, so the order is arguable rather than handed down. Anything low confidence or over capacity does not get quietly sorted. It lands in a tray that needs a person.
Where the human stays. Relay does the reading and the arithmetic. Priority is a judgment call and stays one.
Planning finishes in Relay. Only then does the finished plan move into Asana, where execution runs and everyone sees their tasks. I own that Asana setup too, which is why the fields line up on both sides. Your posting asks for exactly this seam: workflows, templates and reporting that hold together because one person is accountable for the whole path.
plan, capacity, sequence
tasks, owners, status
Plan in Relay. Execute in Asana. Never distort the plan to fit the tracker.
Same three questions for each one, because the transferable thing is the method rather than the subject. The middle question is the one nobody can answer without having built the thing.
To be plain about what these are: operations systems, not ventures. Each one was built for a specific problem I ran into in the workplace, and designed around that problem rather than around a demo. None is for sale, none is looking for users, and none is a business I am trying to start.
They are also real builds, which is the part that gets skipped when somebody says they made a tool with AI. Several tools integrated so the work does not get re-typed between them, a custom database underneath, AI used where it earns its place and left out where it does not, identity and permissions designed in, and hosting I set up and keep running. What I show them for is the method: find the broken hour, take the workflow apart, decide where the human stays, and only then build.3
The point of building them is not the building. It is the week that stops disappearing into sorting incoming requests, working out who actually has room, chasing briefs that arrive half written, and writing the same status update twice. Those hours come back to the work only the lead of the function can do: holding the standard, staffing against it, choosing and managing partners, and making the calls that need judgment. That is the difference between a brand operations hire who administers the function and one who has the hours left to change it, and it is why the ground I cover tends to be wider than the headcount suggests.
1 / 3
Twenty lines from the job description, grouped the way your posting groups them, and split the way a journey splits: met, or partial. Tap any line to open the proof. Every partial names exactly where the gap is, which is the reason to read them first.
Filter
Recruiters filter to Partial first. That is the point of having them.
Brand operations strategy and ownership
That is my current job. At Dow Jones I run intake, briefing, prioritization, capacity and delivery for the Brand team: about 8 events and 5 launches in the past five months, each a fixed-date go-live, across 10+ event and conference properties. At Everyrealm I was Director of Creative Operations and built the model from zero, then hired the team that worked inside it.
Five partner departments plan their design, content design and UX copy work through me. When six teams' quarterly plans arrive, they land on my desk, and one resourced plan leaves it. Steps 01 and 02 of this page are what that accountability looks like when it is built rather than described.
The six teams that plan through my intake are marketing functions: subscription strategy, performance marketing, CRM, event marketing, plus product design and product management. The operating model is written down and running, not a deck. Getting eight property owners onto one shared build, step 05, is the alignment story with the most at stake.
Marketing, events and growth-side functions, yes, weekly and by name. Regional is the honest gap: I have run localization across time zones on android.com, and I have not partnered with regional marketing teams across an office footprint like yours. That scale is part of why I am applying.4
Planning, capacity and delivery enablement
Capacity is computed, not assumed: PTO, standing meetings and partial weeks come off the top before anything is promised. I own the Asana capacity setup at Dow Jones, and I built my own resourcing tool because the meeting where those forecasts happen deserved a better instrument. A Google director is on record: targets met across all workstreams without burnout.
At Everyrealm I sourced and staffed the blend myself: 3D artists, UI and UX, motion and visual designers, internal and freelance, plus outside vendors like Monaverse, onboarded and held through implementation and platform testing to one coordinated launch. In my current role I coordinate freelance support alongside the designers I plan for. And I spent years as the agency on the other side of that relationship, so I know what a good client looks like from both chairs.
An executive director is on record with the phrase "expectation management both internally and externally," about a complex, large-scale project. The mechanism is unglamorous: written scope, a visible plan, and a review cadence that surfaces misalignment before build rather than during it.
Android 12 shipped against a public date that could not move, with creative, content, deployment and localization on the line. On Arizona Public Service, I structured the review cadence so 28+ engineers and skeptical utility executives found the misalignments early. The resourcing tool carries the same instinct: I watched projects slip on stakeholder feedback and wanted the slip visible before it became a miss.
A year-long, deliberately ambiguous exploration of the future of Google Search Ads, run as a peer partnership with Google's Search UX Design Director. An MVP redesign shipped for a pharmaceutical client during the Endo and Mallinckrodt merger, where waiting for consensus was not on the menu.
Systems, process and tooling
The line in the posting I can prove fastest. I own my team's Asana implementation for reporting, capacity and resource management, and I built Relay to push typed, field-mapped payloads into it so nothing is re-typed. One honest clause: my reviews today run against per-reviewer baselines rather than published SLAs. Formalizing SLAs across Brand is work I would relish, not work I have already done.
Events and campaigns, proven: the event portfolio at Dow Jones runs on a system that cut build time about 80%, six of eight properties migrated, and the go-live playbook has now run about eight times in five months. Video and motion are real but thinner: some video production in my current role, and motion and 3D capability staffed and managed at Everyrealm rather than produced by my own hands. The playbook muscle transfers. The video depth is the honest partial.5
Steps 01 and 02 are the point of view and the working example. The rule: buy when a product does the real job, adapt when the gap is process, build only when the near miss would deform how the team works. Behind it, about ten scheduled agents run on an Airtable system of record, behind human approval gates, with cost tracked per agent, so "is this automation worth keeping" has an answer instead of an opinion.
Your posting calls it work-life harmony. My reference calls it "targets across all workstreams without burnout," and she was the director watching. The system does the caring: honest capacity math, review waits measured instead of felt, and a plan that declines work out loud rather than absorbing it quietly.
Financial and vendor stewardship
At Everyrealm I owned the function's spend: the freelancers, the vendors, the team I staffed. At Huge I tracked burn and spend across multiple Google properties throughout. What I have not done is own an in-house brand team's annual budget through a formal Finance planning cycle at public-company scale. Real gap, stated plainly.6
I have onboarded and scoped external partners from the client side, at Everyrealm through implementation and platform testing to a coordinated launch, and I spent years being the agency on the other side of the table at Vertic, Huge and POSSIBLE. That means I can tell a real vendor efficiency claim from a markup, and write a scope that does not get gamed. A formal procurement process with a sourcing team is the part I would be doing for the first time.6
Resourcing strategy and org health through the capacity lens, yes: that is most of what this page argues. Standing partnership with a People team on headcount planning and org design is the part I have done informally, at a startup where I was the one doing the hiring, rather than formally, inside a People org's own cadence.
Who you are
Thirteen-plus years in the work, the last nine-plus of them in Senior and Director roles: Senior Project Manager at Vertic and Huge, Director of Creative Operations at Everyrealm. One reading note for the current title: my team at Dow Jones does not attach levels to program titles. I am the sole UX Program Manager driving the Brand function, which makes me its lead in practice rather than by suffix.
Twice, in the two hardest configurations: built from zero at Everyrealm, where nothing existed until I made it, and inherited at Dow Jones, where the work was already moving and the system had to be improved underneath it without dropping anything.
Two years inside Google's Android pod from Huge, keeping four to six designers on track against the goals, none of whom reported to me, as an embedded team defining the sprints with the design lead and Google's Search UX Design Director. Four references on record, from a Design Ops practitioner, a director, an IC designer and an executive director. Four altitudes, on purpose.
Step 03 is what that looks like when it stops being a phrase. I do not just design processes that scale. When the process needed software that did not exist, I built the software, and built it to propose rather than to act, because that is what a system designed by an operator looks like.
This number is usually reported as an outcome: eight website properties unified into one, six of eight migrated, build time cut about 80%. Reported that way it sounds like an engineering result.
It was not. One engineering team did the building. The system half was design work: tokens defined in Figma for every brand asset across the event brands, so eight properties could run on one system and still each look like themselves.
My part was the agreement and the expectations. Consolidating eight property-specific builds meant getting the people who owned them onto a faster shared one, then holding them steady through migration, which is the half that has nothing to do with engineering.7
Two of the eight are not migrated yet. Six of eight is the honest state of it, and it is the number I would rather report than a rounded one.
I put this here because it is the fair challenge to step 03. Relay has one user and the resourcing tool runs on my own planning rather than across Dow Jones, so if you want evidence that I can get other people to change how they work rather than build something they might, this is the piece of the record that carries it.
Six of the eight properties are migrated. Two are not.
Thirteen-plus years of the same work under names that kept changing, because the function did not have a settled one. Your posting settles it.
Design and development updates, creative, content, deployment and localization across android.com, tv.google and wearos.google.com as the agency maintaining them, delivered against Google's launch calendar and a public date that could not move. I tracked burn and spend across the properties throughout. Separately, I planned a year-long research and design phase for the future of Google Search Ads, defining the sprints with the design lead and Google's Search UX Design Director and keeping four to six designers on track against the goals, as an embedded team.
Director of Creative Operations at a web3 and metaverse development start-up with $50M+ raised from a16z and others. I sourced and staffed the team of 3D artists, UI and UX, motion and visual designers, balanced internal hires against freelance support, owned the function's vendor and freelance spend, and introduced the intake, review rituals and capacity visibility as one system. The function did not exist before I arrived. And the honest ending: when the web3 and metaverse market turned down, the board pivoted the company toward game development and the original business wound down. The chapter ended with the market, not with the work.
A new transactional .com and mobile app for Arizona Public Service, built on a comprehensive design system, after a three-month research phase and an eight-month design phase, delivered with Infosys and 28+ engineers. I structured the review cadence so misalignment surfaced before build rather than during it.
The asset-production phase of the global Better Health Study, one of the company's largest marketing campaigns: executive-level visualizations, a global website, and hundreds of media assets delivered through one gated publishing pipeline. Keeping leadership aligned on a cadence while the volume flows underneath is the same job as making a brand function legible.
A members-only metaverse of one-of-a-kind 3D architectural landmarks by renowned artists. I owned the external vendor relationship with Monaverse through implementation and platform testing to a single coordinated launch, plus external motion, 3D rendering and video production. Vendor stewardship is half of your fourth pillar, and it is where I have real mileage.
1 / 5
Four references in full. A Design Ops practitioner, a director, an IC designer and an executive director. Four altitudes, on purpose.
Diligent on the financial, creative and timing dimensions, a go-getter, with strong UX and design input.
Owned creative, content, deployment and localization on android.com, with meticulous capacity planning to hit targets across all workstreams without burnout. Exceptional communication and problem solving.
A year-long program at Arizona Public Service, complex and multi-part, with both project and client management. A team player and problem solver who built strong client relationships.
Exemplary program management on a complex, large-scale project. Diligent planning, adaptability, and expectation management both internally and externally. His role was critical to its success.
1 / 4
Braze customers would call this a drip campaign. Each step waits, fires, and names the thing that exists at the end of it. A plan whose output is "alignment" is not a plan.
Every path work takes into Brand: where it enters, who bypasses the front door, and why they are right to. Sit with the Creative Directors and ACDs first, because the ops model exists to serve their bar, not the other way around.
Output: a map of how work actually arrives, including the routes nobody documented.
The posting says own and optimize, which implies a gap between the documented process and the real one. Find it: templates, fields, statuses, the reports leadership actually opens, and the ones nobody does.
Output: a gap list ranked by pain, and the two reports worth keeping.
Real capacity after meetings and PTO, a ritual audit, and an inventory of vendor and freelance spend before renewal season decides for us. Three inventories of what the org has already said yes to.
Output: an honest capacity picture, a kill-or-merge list, and a spend map for Finance.
Written, observable principles, so priority becomes a lookup rather than a negotiation and the loudest requester stops winning by default. SLAs agreed with creative leadership, not imposed on it.
Output: one page, in the open, that anyone can check my decisions against.
Two genuinely painful recurring parts of the week, rebuilt with the people who own them, with a measured before and after. Not an org-wide rollout nobody asked for.
Output: a working thing two people use every week, and a number.
One leadership view, one short changelog, one adoption number per surface. Each owned by someone other than me.
Output: a reporting cadence that survives my calendar, plus the first written case for where Brand ops should invest next.
A note about the calendar
Forge 2026 runs September 28 to 30 in Las Vegas. Depending on start date, the biggest event of Braze's year falls inside these 90 days. Good. Event weeks are when an operating model shows its real shape, and I would rather learn the Brand team's pressure points during its Super Bowl than from a retro deck afterwards. The plan above bends around the work, not the other way.8
All three look like leadership. All three spend the trust you need to make the boring changes that work.
Your company is named after a joining process: two different metals, held together by a filler that flows into the seam and sets stronger than either expected. Your posting describes this role as the connective layer between creative ambition and operational reality. Those are the same sentence. I have spent thirteen years being the filler metal, and it is the first posting I have read that names the job that precisely.9
Three specific things drew me, beyond the metaphor. First, the brand work is made in-house and made seriously: your executive creative director has written publicly about rebuilding the brand with an internal team, migrating thousands of pages in the process. A brand org that takes on that production volume in-house is exactly the kind that needs one person accountable for how the work moves, and the posting reads like it was written the morning after someone realized it.
Second, the culture copy matches my references rather than my adjectives. Braze writes "work-life harmony" into every posting. The strongest quote on this page is a Google director crediting meticulous capacity planning that hit targets across all workstreams without burnout. I did not ask her to phrase it that way. That is what work-life harmony looks like from the ops chair: not a perk, a planning discipline.
Third, Braze sells orchestration. The product's whole argument is that messages, channels and timing should run through one system that a human directs. This page is built the same way on purpose: one journey, segmented for its audience, every send sourced. I would be making that argument one floor up, about creative work, in a company that already believes it at the product level.
And the honest part, since a careful reader will already have done the arithmetic: I am about seven months into my role at Dow Jones. I am not running from anything. The work is real, I am happy in it, and I am doing well at it. The reason I am writing is a preference that took thirteen years to get clear, not seven months. I do my best work at a company with technology at its core: where the product is the technology, where the pace and the curiosity follow from that, and where building a better system is understood as the job rather than tolerated as a quirk. Everywhere I have worked, technology served something else. At Braze it is the thing itself, and an operator who builds his own tools stops being unusual there and starts being useful. That is worth moving for when the role appears, and this one appeared.
Producer, project manager, Director of Creative Operations, program manager. This posting is the first one that asks for all of it at once, including the part I built on nights and weekends. I would like to talk about it.
The resourcing tool in step 03 is a fully built tool, in real weekly use, that I built to solve a problem in my own role. Happy to walk through it live if this turns into a conversation.
pr.wvelazquez@gmail.com · 917-554-5173 · New York · LinkedIn
Fine print, promoted
A page that argues for operational rigor should qualify its own claims. These are not fine print. They are the part I would want read first.