SERVICE / SYSTEMS DELIVERY

Systems Delivery & Architecture

DELIVERY REMOTE-FIRST TALLINN · EE

Most software projects don't fail on code. They fail on unclear requirements, architectural decisions made too late, and delivery processes that don't match the actual risk profile of the work. I work as the person who catches those before they become expensive — analyst, delivery lead, or both, depending on what the project needs.

Over fifteen years across logistics (Kuehne+Nagel), insurance (ERGO), telecoms (Elisa), and mixed public and private sector work (Krabu Grupp, Wisercat). Background covers both structured enterprise environments and smaller agile teams.

EngagementProject · Retainer
ModeRemote · Tallinn on-site
Typical span2 wks – several months
SectorsLogistics · Insurance · Public
/01What this covers
  • /01 Requirements analysis and specification for new or changing systems
  • /02 Architecture review and design decisions, with explicit trade-off documentation
  • /03 Delivery leadership — planning, risk management, stakeholder coordination
  • /04 Agile process design and Jira / Atlassian workflow setup that matches the actual work, rather than copying a template
  • /05 Integration analysis and cross-system dependency mapping
  • /06 Handover documentation that survives the person who wrote it
Service items6
OutputDocuments · System changes
/02AI-assisted development

AI-assisted application development is part of this service — where the useful output is a specified, tested, traceable system, not just generated code.

Components built end-to-end with Claude Code or Codex, with human-led specification, review, and verification.

The decision of where to apply LLM involvement — end-to-end, review-and-assist, or entirely human — is part of the engagement design, not a default. Greenfield components and well-bounded refactors benefit most. Brownfield work with deep domain context and hard-to-articulate constraints benefits least.

Proof of method

Iron Auditor was built solo using Claude Code and Codex around a verification-first workflow: a ~2,300-line specification, a 401-scenario test plan, 17 architectural decision records, review loops, and changes traceable end to end.

See how it was built →
ToolchainClaude Code · Codex
OutputSpecified · tested · traceable
ReferenceIron Auditor
/03Typical engagement

Project-based or retainer, remote-first with on-site presence in Tallinn when useful. Engagements range from short analytical passes (two to four weeks, scoping or audit) to embedded delivery leadership over several months. I work alongside existing teams rather than replacing them, and I prefer engagements where the deliverables outlast the engagement itself.

ModeRemote-first
EngagementProject · Retainer
Span2 wks – several months
/04When to get in touch
  • /T01 A project is stuck between "we know roughly what we want" and "the developers need clear enough input to build it"
  • /T02 An architecture decision is pending and no one on the team is comfortable being the person who makes it
  • /T03 A delivery is behind and the cause isn't clearly technical
  • /T04 You need a senior PM or analyst for a defined period without hiring for it
Contactinfo@envisium.ee
Reply within2 business days
/05Contact

Email is the fastest route.

info@envisium.ee

LegalEnvisiumTech OÜ
RegisteredEstonia