20+ years shaping enterprise platforms at Nike, Amazon, and beyond — turning ambiguity into structured workflows, aligned teams, and measurable outcomes.
Shared data, shared patterns, shared decisions. No single case study tells the full story.
Redesigned Nike's Bill of Materials system — the backbone of global product creation.

Connected component-level cost detail to product-level margin impact across the creation ecosystem.

Replaced Flash-based systems powering Nike's customization business — delivered on a hard 18-month deadline.

Embedded product lead on a 0-to-1 engagement — research, strategy, IA, and board presentation across 9 municipalities in 8 states.
UX strategy for wearable-integrated monitoring — translating live sensor data into clear decisions for athletes and workplace safety teams.
Built the pitch, designed the system, co-created the infrastructure. A paired component library for designers and engineers that became the shared foundation across Nike Digital Engineering.
Most UX problems that look like design problems are actually structure problems. If the information architecture is wrong, or the workflow doesn't match how decisions actually get made, no amount of visual polish fixes it. This is the work I do before any screen is designed — workflow architecture, end-to-end journey mapping, information hierarchy. On Gemini, the most important work happened in workshops before Figma was opened — getting teams to agree on what the BOM means, who owns it, and what "accurate" looks like. That alignment was the prerequisite for everything else.
See it in Gemini →Ambiguity in a brief becomes rework in production. I push hard early — on definitions, on scope, on what success actually means — so the team builds the right thing rather than building fast and correcting late. This shows up in how I approach decision-support tools and data-heavy platforms: the question isn't "how do we display this data" but "what decision does this data need to support." On Component Costing, getting Finance, Costing, and Product Creation aligned on shared cost definitions required Director-level negotiation across three functions. It was slower than jumping into design. It's also why Phase 1 shipped without a rebuild.
See it in Component Costing →The visual system is rarely where enterprise products fail. They fail because the people funding them, building them, and using them have different pictures of what they're making. Cross-functional alignment — at VP and Director level, across engineering, product, finance, and operations — is one of the things I'm most useful for. On Apollo, user skepticism was the real constraint. Opening office hours — giving 250 merchandisers a direct line — turned doubters into collaborators faster than any design decision could.
See it in Apollo →A solution that works for one team, one region, or one season isn't a solution — it's a patch. I design with the second and third order in mind: component systems that other teams can build on, operating models that survive leadership changes, research foundations that enable teams I'll never meet. The SALT library started as an Apollo efficiency decision and became infrastructure used by 50 Nike applications. That happened because it was designed to scale, not just to ship.
See it in Apollo →"Andrew demonstrated an exceptional ability to simplify complex concepts and lead with the user at the center. His deep understanding of user needs and preferences, coupled with his strategic vision, help drive the success of our project... He has a natural ability to foster a culture of inclusivity within the team, empowering his team to do their best work."
"He's savvy, decisive, and has the ability to quickly cut through noise and strategize a path forward... He puts trust and faith in his team, always listens and understands issues first before acting, and knows when to lead and when to step back and empower others to call the shots."
If it's complicated, I'm interested.
Get in touch