OptiVisionPlatform · Order fulfilment
Connects customer orders with production, stock and dispatch so teams can commit to delivery dates backed by available capacity.
Honeywell
Scaling industrial software and predictive AI.
Honeywell builds automation and software for industrial operations. In Brazil, I progressed from Product Intern to Product Manager and Senior Product Manager between 2016 and 2021. After supporting order research, I set OptiVision priorities for orders and invoicing, then led an asset reliability programme across three sites with an associate PM and twelve specialists, linking investment and release decisions to client commitments.
Product Intern → Product Manager → Senior Product Manager2016–2021
Products and platforms in my scope
Invoicing & CreditCapability · Commercial controls
Keeps agreed prices, charges and credit information aligned with each shipment so finance can prepare accurate customer invoices.
Products and platforms in my scope
Honeywell Forge APMPlatform · Asset performance
Combines equipment condition and operating data so leaders can assess emerging issues and prioritise assets for maintenance.
Predictive AnalyticsCapability · Industrial AI
Uses equipment history and machine learning to identify deterioration, giving specialists time to plan an inspection or repair.
Asset Reliability · 2018–2021
01What was the friction?
Customer promises needed a reliable basis for delivery.
Account teams were accepting delivery dates before stock, production capacity and billing terms had been reconciled, creating urgent shipments and invoice corrections. At four mills across two Brazilian paper producers, I reviewed the existing OptiVision workflow with sales, planning and finance to identify where each promise lost its supporting information. Those findings shaped a product plan for commitments the mills could fulfil.
A delivery date needed an executable order plan.
Sales could accept a requested date before planning confirmed stock and capacity. I made availability checks part of order confirmation, so the promise agreed with the customer reflected a deliverable plan.
Customer requestQuantity and required date
Planning checkStock and production capacity
Accepted promiseFeasible customer delivery
Order confirmation ruleCustomer acceptance follows the availability check
Product requirement: confirm quantity and delivery date against stock, capacity and customer acceptance.
Commercial terms had to survive the billing handoff.
Prices and freight charges were reconciled after dispatch, creating invoice corrections. I prioritised complete commercial terms at order acceptance and a finance owner for each billing exception.
Order termsAgreed quantity, price and freight
ShipmentActual quantity against the accepted order
Invoice reviewCharges reconciled with the approved terms
Exception ownerClient finance approves commercial changes
Product requirement: preserve agreed quantities, prices and charges from the order through invoicing.
The release needed support from the decision owners.
Sales, operations and finance judged the work against different pressures. I agreed common service and cost targets, then used them to rank requests and negotiate a release scope the team could deliver.
| Decision owner | Outcome reviewed | Commitment |
|---|---|---|
| Sales | Customer service | Achievable promise |
| Operations | Delivery reliability | Capacity and sequence |
| Finance | Commercial accuracy | Terms and exceptions |
Investment requirement: agree the outcome, exception owner and delivery effort before committing scope.
02What approach and priorities did I choose?
I made dependable order commitments the first release objective.
I linked each order to available stock, scheduled production and approved commercial terms so teams could confirm a date they could fulfil. To align the release scope, I agreed service and cost targets with the clients’ operations and finance sponsors before negotiating scope with account leaders. I then sequenced domestic orders across four mills, giving recurring needs priority over individual contract variations.
01 / FirstCustomer commitments
Confirm a feasible promise
I put stock and capacity checks before order confirmation so the accepted date reflected a deliverable plan. Sales retained ownership of the promise agreed with the customer.
QuantityCapacityDelivery date
02 / RequiredCommercial control
Carry the agreed terms
I kept prices and freight charges attached to the order through dispatch and billing. Finance approved commercial exceptions, giving the team clear rules for the first release.
PricesChargesApproval
03 / ExpandProduct investment
Scale the shared scope
I prioritised domestic orders with recurring needs across the four mills. Sponsors reviewed the service benefit and delivery effort before I committed capacity to further scope.
ServiceEffortReturn
01
Build the evidence
Support order research and business cases, then bring the recurring problems to the product lead.
Order exceptions documented02
Agree client scope
Agree service targets and commercial rules with client sponsors, then negotiate the first scope.
Release criteria agreed03
Coordinate the rollout
Sequence four mill releases with delivery leads and validate each complete order through billing.
Four mill releases accepted04
Direct the next scope
Review service and operating benefit with sponsors, then commit capacity to the next priorities.
Investment priorities agreed03How did I lead the team?
I turned competing priorities into agreed product commitments.
Commercial teams wanted broader order coverage, finance needed consistent charges and operations needed achievable delivery dates. I secured agreement on a common acceptance standard, then used it to settle competing requests and negotiate each client’s release scope. After a year supporting research and business cases, I took ownership of regional priorities and coordinated seven specialists through named delivery leads.
Felipe LöweProduct Intern → Product Manager
I owned regional priorities and client release scope, using service targets, commercial rules and delivery capacity to resolve competing account demands.
2016–2017
Product Intern
Prepared order research, classified commercial exceptions and supported business cases, taking recommendations to the product lead.
2017–2018
Product Manager
Set regional priorities, negotiated client scope and reviewed release evidence with discipline leads before agreeing client acceptance.
Global teams owned the core platform; I owned regional priorities and client release commitments within that roadmap.
Seven specialists worked from one product commitment.
I agreed capacity with engineering, application and design leads, then evaluated outcomes within the release scope. When account requests competed for that capacity, I brought sponsors a costed choice and secured a decision.
4Engineering
2Application & delivery
1Design & research
Weekly · Product decisions
Review order exceptions and delivery progress with discipline leads, then decide which changes enter the next release.
Monthly · Sponsor commitments
Review service, cost and capacity with client sponsors, then negotiate the scope and timing of further commitments.
04Which bottleneck shaped the delivery plan?
Contract variations changed the scope of the first release.
Export contracts introduced currency, freight and billing variations that exceeded the first delivery window. I agreed a domestic order scope with client sponsors and kept export requirements in a separate plan, giving the four mills a release they could accept against common commercial rules.
05How did we deliver and validate the product?
Every confirmed order carried a feasible delivery promise.
We brought quantity, delivery dates and agreed charges into one review, using OptiVision to connect customer commitments with production and shipment information. The example below follows a 120-tonne paper order from availability checks to a customer-approved promise. Sales, planning and finance tested this journey with me, checking quantities, dates and charges for consistency through the billing handoff before I accepted each release.
Order BR-1842 · Domestic paper
Review requiredConfirm a deliverable order.
The customer requests 120 tonnes by Monday; available stock and scheduled production establish when the full order is ready, giving sales a complete delivery proposal to agree with the customer.
120 tonnes requiredStock + scheduled production
In stock nowReady on Tuesday
RequestedMonday
Full quantity readyTuesday
Feasible deliveryThursday
The remaining 40 tonnes are scheduled for Tuesday, when the full order will be ready; two days in transit place delivery on Thursday, the date sales confirms with the customer before recording the promise.
The accepted commitment will appear here.
Review the order readiness and record customer acceptance to see the quantity, delivery date and commercial terms retained together.
Customer acceptance recorded.
The sales owner confirms Thursday as the first accepted delivery date.
- Accepted quantity
- 120 tonnes of paper
- Delivery promise
- Thursday
- Goods value
- R$288,000
- Agreed freight
- R$12,000
- Commercial value
- R$300,000 before tax
- Commitment owner
- Client sales representative
The commitment record links the accepted 120-tonne quantity and Thursday delivery date to the agreed prices, freight and sales owner, giving planning and finance a common reference through dispatch and billing. It retains the original Monday request and uses the first accepted Thursday promise as the basis for measuring service performance.
Validate the complete customer promise.
Sales, planning and finance followed representative domestic orders from request through dispatch and billing. I reviewed results with them before agreeing each mill release, keeping unresolved exceptions with a named owner.
AvailabilityStock and production
AcceptanceCustomer-agreed date
BillingApproved order terms
Each mill release was checked end to end, with the accepted quantity, delivery date and charges providing a common reference for sales, planning and finance.
Keep acceptance tied to business rules.
- Feasible commitment
- Confirm the full order quantity against stock and scheduled production, then include transit time in the delivery date agreed with the customer.
- Consistent commercial terms
- Carry agreed quantities, prices and freight through dispatch and billing, checking each invoice against the terms accepted by the customer.
- Owned exceptions
- Sales agrees delivery changes with the customer and finance approves commercial changes, keeping the original terms available through billing.
Review availability, then record customer acceptance of the feasible delivery date.
06What did the OKRs and KPIs show?
Better commitments improved service and reduced operating cost.
The 2018 review compared order performance across four mills with a separate assessment of annual operating cost. Median confirmation time fell from 2.5 to 1.0 business days, delivery in full and on time reached 94%, and first-time invoice accuracy reached 99%. Client finance teams assessed R$2.8M in net annual benefit, supporting the next investment decision while I kept remaining delivery and billing exceptions in the product review.
Time to confirm a customer order
Four mills · 3,000 orders per review period
2.5 → 1.0 days60% shorter confirmation time
Baseline 2.5 dReview 1.0 d
30
Target ≤1.5 business daysTarget met
What the result changed
The shorter confirmation cycle gave account teams a dependable service commitment. I used remaining delays to prioritise the next availability checks.
See the measurement details
Median business time from a complete customer request to its first customer-approved quantity and delivery date. Internal planning and credit waits remain on the clock. Each period uses 3,000 domestic orders originally due within a twelve-week window, with the same mill and product mix. The median fell from 2.5 to 1.0 days, a 60% reduction.
Orders delivered in full and on time
Four mills · 3,000 orders per review period
84% → 94%+10 percentage points
Baseline 84%Review 94%
2,520 → 2,820 of 3,000100%
Target ≥93% against the agreed promiseTarget met
What the result changed
Three hundred more orders met their original delivery promise. I kept the 180 remaining misses in the planning review before expanding the release scope.
See the measurement details
Orders received in full by the customer on or before the first accepted delivery date, divided by all 3,000 orders in each matched sample. Results rose from 2,520 to 2,820. Later date changes cannot reset the promise; late, short, undelivered or subsequently cancelled orders count as misses. The original due-date window and fixed mill and product mix remain unchanged.
Orders invoiced correctly first time
Four mills · 3,000 orders per review period
96% → 99%+3 percentage points
Baseline 96%Review 99%
2,880 → 2,970 of 3,000100%
Target ≥99% correct at first issueTarget met
What the result changed
Ninety fewer orders needed a billing correction in the matched sample. I retained finance review of recurring exceptions before adding contract variations.
See the measurement details
The complete invoice set must match the order’s approved quantity, prices and freight terms at first issue, with any commercial correction in the next thirty days counted as a failure. Orders still uninvoiced thirty days after their original accepted due date also fail. Correct orders rose from 2,880 to 2,970 of 3,000. This commercial measure excludes fiscal processing and uses the same samples as the service measures.
Net annual operating benefit
Client finance assessment · Four mills
R$2.8MR$0.3M above target
Gross 3.4Costs 0.6
Net 2.8Annual value · R$M
Target ≥R$2.5M net annual benefitTarget met
What the result changed
The assessed operating benefit supported further investment. I negotiated the next scope against the cost evidence and the delivery capacity it required.
See the measurement details
Client finance teams compared twelve months of post-release costs, ending at the 2018 review, with the baseline at fixed shipment volumes and agreed rates. R$2.6M in avoided urgent freight and redelivery plus R$0.8M in avoided penalties and service credits produced R$3.4M gross benefit. Deducting R$0.6M in incremental software and support costs gives R$2.8M net, before one-off implementation investment. Revenue and staff time savings are excluded.
Service and billing measures use matched 3,000-order samples across four mills. Finance reviews twelve months of cost records separately; the annual benefit is measured before one-off implementation investment.
Product context & measurement notes
OptiVision in the Brazilian industrial context
OptiVision connects customer orders to production, inventory, shipment and commercial terms. In this programme, stock and capacity checks established a feasible delivery promise, while agreed prices and charges followed the order into billing; the client’s ERP handled fiscal processing.
Reading the programme measures
The first programme covers standard domestic orders at four mills across two clients. Service and billing comparisons use 3,000 orders per period with fixed mill and product mixes, selected by original accepted due dates. Financial value uses a separate twelve-month cost assessment. Fiscal processing remains in the client’s ERP.
Continue into industrial asset reliability.
2018–2021 · Senior Product Manager · Predictive maintenance
01What was the friction?
Maintenance priorities needed a common basis for investment.
Plant directors had to decide which equipment deserved limited inspection capacity and funding. Across three Brazilian sites, separate condition reports gave uneven weight to production impact, available backup and the evidence behind an alert. In 2018, I brought operations, reliability and finance leads into a joint review of 72 candidate assets, defining the information needed to compare interventions and establish a product scope each site could operate.
The same alert could carry a different business consequence.
A compressor with no available backup had a different investment priority from a pump with spare capacity. I made production exposure and recoverability part of the review, giving plant leaders a shared basis for choosing work.
| Asset | Production exposure | Backup | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compressor | Main production line | Unavailable | First |
| Feed pump | Supporting service | Available | Scheduled |
Product requirement: show condition, production exposure and available backup in the same decision.
A useful warning had to precede a feasible intervention.
Reliability specialists reconstructed 24 confirmed equipment events using dated records. We agreed a seven-day warning threshold and preserved the event dates, allowing each model revision to be assessed against the same planning need.
First qualifying warningConfirmed event
At least seven days to plan
Inspect the evidenceArrange the intervention
Dated evaluation set24 confirmed equipment events
Evaluation requirement: preserve the event window and distinguish timely, late and missed warnings.
Supported use depended on a defined operating range.
The 72-asset review examined history, operating modes and maintenance ownership. Sixty assets met the agreed conditions, and twelve retained an evidence plan before their predictive outputs could enter maintenance planning.
72Candidate assets
60Supported use
12Further qualification
Representative historySupported modesReliability owner
Release requirement: documented operating range, a reliability owner and a return-to-review condition.
02What approach and priorities did I choose?
I concentrated investment on the assets carrying the highest risk.
I chose critical rotating equipment as the first scope and ranked release requests by production exposure, evidence quality and the effort required to act. As Honeywell Forge became available in 2019, I aligned the programme with its asset monitoring and predictive capabilities. The roadmap connected early warnings to inspection decisions, with explicit conditions for supported use and an investment review before adding further equipment classes.
01 / FirstCapital discipline
Prioritise production exposure
Critical equipment concentrated the cost of disruption. I put production impact, available backup and intervention effort into the release sequence agreed with client leaders.
ExposureBackupEffort
02 / RequiredModel governance
Define the permitted use
Model performance varied across operating modes. I set the conditions for specialist review and suspension, giving each release a defined scope of supported use.
ScopeOwnerReview
03 / ExpandProgramme growth
Fund the next supported scope
Expansion required a practical maintenance response. I tied new equipment classes to evidence, inspection capacity and a commercial plan the delivery group could fulfil.
EvidenceActionFunding
01
Select critical equipment
Define exposure and candidate assets in 2018, then align the scope with Forge as it becomes available in 2019.
72 assets assessed02
Set conditions for use
Define supported operating modes, warning requirements and the specialist response for each model.
60 assets qualified03
Establish maintenance use
Release in site waves and check that warnings reach an inspection or an owned follow-up decision.
Three site plans accepted04
Commit the next scope
Review downtime, missed warnings and commercial terms before allocating the next delivery capacity.
R$7.2M signed over two years03How did I lead the team?
I led the PM and aligned investment with site delivery.
I led an associate PM and coordinated twelve specialists within a R$2.4M delivery allocation. The PM owned the maintenance journey and user evidence; discipline leads owned model performance and site delivery. I coached their recommendations, settled competing priorities and chaired monthly reviews with plant, finance and account leaders to agree release scope, spending and commercial commitments.
Felipe LöweSenior Product Manager
I owned programme priorities, release criteria and the R$2.4M delivery allocation, aligning product decisions with the operating and commercial commitments of three clients.
Delegated
Associate PM
Owned the maintenance journey and user evidence, with authority to prioritise improvements within the agreed release scope.
Retained
Senior Product Manager
Resolved competing site priorities, approved supported model scope and agreed changes to spending and client commitments.
Client plant leaders approved maintenance interventions; I governed the product scope supporting their decisions.
One PM and twelve specialists delivered the programme.
I coached the associate PM through weekly decision reviews and agreed specialist capacity with functional leads. The programme sponsor approved the allocation; I managed its use across the client commitments.
4Engineering
3Data & reliability
2Design & research
3Deployment
Weekly · Evidence and coaching
The PM brought a recommendation, its evidence and the effect on other sites; I coached the decision and resolved dependencies.
Monthly · Investment and scope
Plant, finance and account leaders reviewed release coverage, spending and contract scope before I committed the next capacity.
04Which bottleneck shaped the delivery plan?
The operating history determined where predictive models could be used.
Twelve of the 72 assets lacked enough operating history for a reliable assessment. I validated release readiness with the team and focused capacity on the sixty supported assets, each with a defined operating range, reliability owner and recovery rule for using predictive advice in maintenance plans.
05How did we deliver and validate the product?
Each warning led to a reviewable maintenance decision.
We used Forge asset monitoring and predictive analytics to connect equipment behaviour with production exposure and an inspection plan. In the example below, the reader reviews a compressor, checks its supported operating mode and schedules an inspection. The release work combined dated equipment events with maintenance walkthroughs, so model coverage, warning time and the practical ability to intervene shaped the scope I approved for daily use.
Compressor C-14 · Site B
Supported modeAssess the maintenance priority.
The equipment signal rises beyond its expected range; main-line exposure and unavailable backup place this compressor first for inspection, giving the specialist a clear reason to review it during the shift.
Earlier observationsLatest
Expected rangeObserved signal
Production exposureMain lineAvailable backupNone availableNext actionInspect this shift
The inspection plan will appear here.
Check the supported operating mode and schedule the inspection to see how the warning becomes a maintenance commitment.
Inspection added to the current shift.
The reliability specialist owns the assessment and the next recommendation.
- Asset
- Compressor C-14 · Site B
- Business exposure
- Main line with no backup
- Operating mode
- Normal production
- Accountable owner
- Reliability specialist
- Immediate action
- Inspect during this shift
- Further intervention
- Plant approval after assessment
The inspection record links the equipment warning to its production exposure, available backup and accountable specialist, so the next reviewer can see why this asset takes priority. After assessment, the specialist recommends further work for plant approval, carrying the reason for inspection into the subsequent maintenance decision.
Evaluate the time available to act.
Specialists replayed 24 dated equipment events from a holdout period and checked the first qualifying warning. The seven-day planning threshold remained fixed when the models were revised.
18Timely
4Late
2Missed
Four late warnings and two missed events guided further work, with revisions checked on the same dated events against the fixed seven-day threshold.
Keep model use within its evidence.
- Defined coverage
- Apply predictive advice within the validated asset class and production mode, using representative history to support the maintenance decision.
- Practical response
- The reliability specialist reviews the warning, checks the time available to inspect the asset and prepares a recommendation for plant approval.
- Return to review
- Review the asset when its conditions or data move beyond the validated range, then confirm supported use before predictive advice resumes.
Check the operating mode, then schedule an inspection of the priority asset.
06What did the OKRs and KPIs show?
The programme improved reliability and secured committed client scope.
By the 2021 review, sixty assets were in supported use and unplanned downtime had fallen from 25 to 17 hours per 1,000 scheduled asset-hours. Eighteen of 24 historical events received at least seven days of warning, two below target, which kept specific failure modes under specialist review. Three clients signed R$7.2M in two-year scope, and I aligned the next delivery allocation with those commitments and the remaining coverage gaps.
Unplanned equipment downtime
Same 60 assets · Three industrial sites
25 → 17 h32% lower downtime rate
Baseline 25 hReview 17 h
300
Target ≤20 h per 1,000 scheduled hoursTarget met
What the result changed
The lower downtime rate supported continued deployment. I used the remaining failure modes to prioritise the next investment with each plant leader.
See the measurement details
Unplanned equipment stop-hours are divided by scheduled asset-hours and expressed per 1,000 hours. Two six-month windows cover the same 60 assets, using the same stop definitions and excluding planned maintenance. Concurrent stops are counted per asset. The 32% change reflects the programme period and associated maintenance activity.
Events with sufficient warning
24 confirmed events · Dated historical evaluation
18 of 24At least seven days of notice
010203040506070809101112131415161718192021222324
18 timely4 late2 missed
Target ≥20 events with seven days’ notice2 below target
What the result changed
Six events fell short of the planning window. I agreed correction priorities with reliability specialists and kept affected failure modes under review.
See the measurement details
The evaluation replayed 24 confirmed degradation episodes in a chronological holdout period excluded from model fitting. Eighteen were flagged at least seven days before the event, four later and two were missed. The target was twenty timely warnings. This event-coverage measure is reviewed alongside the separate alert burden.
Assets in supported daily use
72 selected candidates · Three client sites
60 of 7283% of the candidate cohort
60 supported12 in qualification
Target ≥60 qualified assetsTarget met
What the result changed
The coverage target was met across three sites. I mapped evidence needs with the PM for these twelve assets still awaiting a supported model scope.
See the measurement details
Supported use required current data, a validated operating range, a reliability owner and a defined maintenance response. Sixty of the 72 selected assets met all four conditions at the review. The remaining twelve stayed in qualification, with predictive outputs excluded from maintenance prioritisation.
Signed programme expansion
Three agreements · Two-year contract value
R$7.2MR$1.2M above target
Two-year value · R$M
1.8Client A
2.4Client B
3.0Client C
Target ≥R$6.0M in signed scopeTarget met
What the result changed
Three clients committed further scope. I aligned the contracted features, support requirements and staffing with the next programme delivery budget.
See the measurement details
Signed two-year agreement values of R$1.8M, R$2.4M and R$3.0M total R$7.2M, covering software, implementation and support. The measure records committed contract value; recognition follows delivery terms. The R$2.4M allocation in the leadership section is the separate internal budget for the current programme.
The 60-asset downtime study, 24-event historical evaluation, 72-asset qualification review and 40-alert live review have separate populations and measurement windows.
Product context & measurement notes
The move into industrial predictive analytics
The programme began with scope definition in 2018 and adopted Forge after its 2019 launch. Honeywell’s 2020 APM documentation combines equipment performance, predictive models and maintenance planning. I used those capabilities within the agreed asset classes and supported operating conditions.
Reading the programme measures
The operating programme spans three Brazilian sites, with sixty assets in supported use. Historical event coverage and live alert burden are separate evaluations. Downtime measures equipment stop-hours, while commercial value covers full two-year agreements. The delivery allocation and signed client scope retain separate financial definitions.