saras. Project controls · Oslo
CV

01 Hei · Oslo

Make the work
checkable.

I turn scope, schedule, cost and risk into an operating picture a team can challenge—and leadership can act on.

Scan the proof Open CV Download PDF
Available · Oslo 10+ years · industrial delivery
01SignalWhat is changing?
02StructureWhat connects?
03DecisionWhat happens next?
Operating principle

Numbers people can check beat numbers people must trust.

Experience
10+ years
Nordic teams
NO · DK · SE
Permit
May 2027
Norwegian
A2–B1
Scroll chapter by chapter

02 Evidence field

Six results.
Every number explained.

Each result states what changed, what produced it and why it mattered to the people making decisions.

Forecast accuracyQuantafuel
+30%

Forecasts became 30% more accurate.

Integrated analytical planning and scenario modelling gave leadership a more reliable view before committing resources.

Why it matteredLess decision-making against stale or fragmented assumptions.
Resource utilisationQuantafuel
+50%

Shared planning improved resource use by 50%.

A lifecycle-wide execution model made cross-functional demand, priorities and capacity visible in one place.

Why it matteredTeams could allocate scarce capability against the real portfolio—not separate spreadsheets.
Reporting cyclePMO + executives
−20%

Reporting took 20% less time.

Systematic monitoring and automation made progress data traceable across weekly, bi-weekly and monthly reporting.

Why it matteredDeviations reached decision-makers sooner, with a clearer route to corrective action.
Portfolio scaleSkive modification portfolio
12+active/30+pipeline

Twelve priorities stayed visible inside a 30+ project pipeline.

One operating model separated work being actively scheduled from the wider opportunity and modification pipeline.

Why it matteredUrgent work could move without making the rest of the portfolio disappear.
System adoptionOmega365
50+

More than 50 people were trained.

Hands-on, on-site and remote training moved the migration from software setup into the team’s real workflow.

Why it matteredThe team could operate the system independently after handover.
Delivery scaleSkive, Denmark
£10M

A £10M production-line modification became a portfolio backbone.

I led project planning, combined schedule and resource load, and made costs and forecasts transparent.

Why it matteredThe resource model proved useful beyond one project and was adopted across the portfolio.

03 Selected work

Four cases.
Four control problems.

The useful layer is visible now. Open a case only for the deeper route.

01
Biogas · Norway + Sweden

One plant running.
One blank sheet.

2 × 150k t/yr
BrownfieldVestBuild around live operations
same control discipline
GreenfieldMalmBuild the case from zero

Single point of accountability for scope, schedule, cost and risk—from engineering to production ramp-up.

02
Industrial modification · Denmark

The model that
stayed after handover.

£10M
disciplines →Integrated
model→ portfolio reuse

Schedule, resource load and cost became one operating picture; 50+ people were trained to use it.

03
Systems migration · Nordic portfolio

Migration was easy.
Adoption was delivery.

50+ trained
  1. Audit
  2. Requirements
  3. Setup
  4. Training
  5. Governance
  6. Independence

Owned vendor coordination, requirements, setup, training and governance—from Omega PIMS to Omega365.

04
Scenario decision · Norway / Denmark

Two sides.
Their decision.

Unbiased route
OsloEngineering case Comparable
evidence DenmarkProduction case ↓ Executive decision

I interviewed both sides, made constraints and consequences comparable, and left the decision where it belonged.

04 Career route

Lucknow → Oslo.
The project thread stayed.

Work and study ran in parallel more than once. The route shows why industrial controls, business systems and people adoption now sit together.

  1. 2012–16
    Lucknow · delivery foundation

    Power Electronics

    Mechanical engineering met 50+ tenders, planning, delivery and handover.

    Learn the work
  2. 2016–22
    India · founder/operator

    Rationale Energy

    Built the business systems behind up to 50 concurrent EPC projects.

    Own the system
  3. 2022–24
    Oslo · transition

    BI · Evyon · Vulkaza

    Digital-business study ran beside four Norwegian roles and operating problems.

    Translate context
  4. 2024–26
    Nordic · portfolio scale

    Quantafuel

    Joined project controls, resource planning, reporting and system adoption.

    Connect decisions
  5. 2026 →
    Oslo · energy transition

    Antec Biogas

    Controls and digital governance across two 150,000 t/yr assets.

    Build forward
Learning ran beside delivery
2012–16 · LucknowMechanical Engineering

Technical foundations, completed alongside project work.

2022–25 · BI OsloDigital Business

Innovation, systems, transformation and strategy.

One continuing question How do we make complex delivery visible enough to act on?

Engineering became operating a business; that became Nordic portfolio controls and digital systems. The context changed—the decision problem stayed.

05 Two-month systems lab

AI as an operating system.
Not a single side project.

Eight owned systems, products and active prototypes for control, context, traceability and human authority.

Human authority Decisions remain
with people
01 · orchestration

Vev

Three models work as one team and stop at human decisions.

approval gates
02 · operating layer

Loom

A frozen core with versioned policy for controlled agent change.

governed change
03 · design method

Smia

Routes a design problem to the method that fits its evidence and scope.

fit before taste
04 · project controls

P3M engine

Turns confirmed project context into an explainable operating model.

working product
05 · local system

Second Brain OS

Joins retrieval, memory and consent-gated agent execution.

working system
06 · canonical method

Weaveplane

One project method that connected tools read without private drift.

Visit live build
07 · reusable practice

Cross-model skills

Repeatable methods shared across Claude, Codex and Gemini.

portable capability
08 · applied research

IBP unifying layer

Explores one plan of record across fragmented planning tools.

in development

06 Systems in motion

Tools are useful
when signals move.

Five operational routes show how information becomes a shared decision—not a software inventory.

SourceControl moveWorking stackDestination
01BaselineSchedule logicPrimavera · MS ProjectPortfolio
02CapacityResource modelMeisterplan · FloatInvestment
03ProgressData modelPower BI · AnaplanForecast
04ScopeGovernanceOmega365 · OPCChange
05Plant dataIntegrationERP · EAM · CRMExecutive view
Not “which tool?”What must become visible, to whom, before which decision?

07 Operating loop

From project noise
to a usable decision.

All six moves, their actions and their evidence—visible as one continuous route.

InputUncertain scope
competing signals
  1. 01 · Understand

    Audit reality.

    Map decisions, constraints and what the plan is really carrying.

    tool audit · user needs
  2. 02 · Align

    Create one view.

    Make requirements, ownership and dates recognisable before promising.

    owners · baseline
  3. 03 · Organise

    Build the route.

    Connect work, dependencies, governance and decision points.

    WBS · dependencies
  4. 04 · Activate

    Bring people in.

    Train in the real workflow so adoption becomes part of delivery.

    50+ trained · live use
  5. 05 · Support

    Surface friction.

    Catch workarounds and reporting gaps before they harden.

    feedback · office hours
  6. 06 · Improve

    Change the system.

    Refine process and documentation until the team owns it.

    review · independence
OutputDecision-ready view
owned by the team

08 How I operate

Calm structure.
Visible disagreement.

Four behaviours describe the working relationship. External recommendations now have their own chapter.

01 · Listen

Start with the people carrying the work.

Ask before prescribing. Make constraints safe to say out loud.

Input: lived reality
02 · Structure

Give uncertainty a shape.

A shared model is a conversation tool, not a compliance layer.

Output: one visible view
03 · Challenge

Make disagreement inspectable.

Compare evidence without turning the room into winners and losers.

Output: a fair decision
04 · Handover

Leave capability behind.

The team should need less external help when the work is finished.

Output: independent ownership
Known failure modeI say yes too readily.

My correction is to scope the help before absorbing the whole problem.

09 Recommendations

Three perspectives.
One repeated signal.

Manager, people and peer perspectives are visible together so corroboration can be read—not inferred.

01 · Manager

“Measurable KPIs and clear accountability structures.”

René Ortiz · manager perspective Signal: accountability
02 · People

Creates trust by making progress and ownership visible.

HR / people perspective Signal: visible progress
03 · Peer

Respectful collaboration—especially when viewpoints differ.

Jaime Arenillas · peer perspective Signal: constructive challenge
What repeats across the voices Clear accountability · visible progress · respectful disagreement

The recommendations validate the operating pattern without sharing the same authorship or vantage point.

10 Next gate

If the work needs
to become clearer,
let’s compare notes.

Project controls, PMO and digital delivery systems—especially where planning, adoption and executive decisions meet.

  1. 01ContextYou share the control problem.
  2. 02FitWe test whether my experience maps.
  3. 03Next stepOnly then do we decide what follows.
Email Saras Open CV Download PDF LinkedIn Weaveplane
Status
Available now · Oslo
Authorization
Norwegian work permit · May 2027
Study
PMI PMP + PMOCP · in progress
Language
English C1 · Norwegian A2–B1, improving